Case 6018531/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Roxanne Clinch v TLC Candlewood House — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018531/2024
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Roxanne Clinch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Roxanne Clinch brought claims against TLC Candlewood House for direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The tribunal heard the case by video at Cambridge on 7 November 2025 before Regional Employment Judge Foxwell, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal held that both claims were presented outside the applicable time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It further found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
As a result, the claim was dismissed. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and no further written reasons were provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was found to have been presented outside the applicable time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was found to have been presented outside the applicable time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
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.