Case 6010475/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010475/2024
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Miss G Thomas, brought claims of age discrimination and race discrimination against Maryam’s Nursery. The case was heard on 3 November 2025 before Employment Judge Morton sitting alone in London South by CVP. For the Claimant, the Claimant appeared in person; for the Respondent, Mr B Amunwa, Counsel appeared.
The Tribunal recorded that the age discrimination claim under s 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment does not record any substantive determination on the merits of that claim.
The race discrimination claim was found to have been presented outside the statutory time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, with the result that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and it was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment records that the age discrimination claim under s 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal found the race discrimination claim was brought outside the statutory time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s 13 Equality Act 2010
- s123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.