Case 6016567/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony O’Connor v Mitie Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016567/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- London East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Anthony O’Connor, brought a complaint of direct race discrimination against Mitie Limited. The Tribunal identified the alleged discriminatory act as having occurred on 6 May 2023, but the claim was not presented until 28 October 2024.
The Tribunal held that the complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. It found there was no continuing act and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. In those circumstances, the claimant had no title to present the complaint and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The complaint was therefore dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal found the complaint of direct race discrimination was presented out of time under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, with the act complained of occurring on 6 May 2023 and the claim not presented until 28 October 2024. The Tribunal found there was no continuing act and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- continuing act
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.