Case 6018719/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Smith v City of Sunderland College Corporation PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2026
- Case reference
- 6018719/2025
- Decision date
- 2 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moss REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing at Newcastle on 2 June 2026, Employment Judge Moss considered Miss S Smith's complaints of disability discrimination and age discrimination against City of Sunderland College Corporation.
The tribunal struck out both complaints because it found that it had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment records that the complaints were presented outside the primary period specified in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the complaint was presented outside the primary period in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the complaint was presented outside the primary period in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.