Case 6009655/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Dionne Forbes v Whitbread Group plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009655/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Dionne Forbes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the complaints of discrimination and victimisation were not presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit for those complaints.
The Tribunal also recorded that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit, and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of discrimination were out of time and dismissed. The PDF text does not set out detailed reasons; the age characteristic is identified from the case listing context. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of discrimination were out of time and dismissed. The PDF text does not set out detailed reasons; the race characteristic is identified from the case listing context. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.