Case 6012872/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Barron (Solicitor) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012872/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing conducted by CVP at Bury St Edmunds on 19 and 20 June 2025 before Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone. The tribunal considered the Claimant’s claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and pregnancy and maternity discrimination.
The tribunal held that those discrimination and harassment claims were manifestly out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time to validate them. It therefore had no jurisdiction to hear those claims and dismissed them.
The tribunal also recorded, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was in time and would proceed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim of direct race discrimination. The tribunal found it was manifestly out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race. The tribunal found it was manifestly out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The tribunal found it was manifestly out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of time
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.