Case 6019637/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr J Gamble v University of Liverpool and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019637/2024
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Dr J Gamble
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the claimant's application to postpone the hearing, which had been made the day before the hearing. It found that the circumstances relied on did not meet the applicable requirement for exceptional circumstances under rule 32.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not materially complied with an unless order requiring specific information about some complaints. As a result, all claims against the third and fourth respondents and the harassment related to disability, direct race discrimination, and direct religion or belief discrimination complaints against the first and second respondents stood dismissed on 30 May 2025 under rule 39.
The remaining claims were harassment related to race and/or religion or belief against the first and second respondents. The Tribunal found that the alleged events ended on 29 November 2023, the claim was entered on 24 November 2024, and it was not just and equitable to extend time, particularly given the absence of a genuine explanation for the delay beyond ill health generally and the prejudice to the respondents from the delay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claims for harassment related to race against the first and/or second respondents were not presented within the applicable time limit, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Claims for harassment related to religion or belief against the first and/or second respondents were not presented within the applicable time limit, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The harassment related to disability complaint stood dismissed on 30 May 2025 as the automatic effect of material non-compliance with an unless order under rule 39. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination complaint stood dismissed on 30 May 2025 as the automatic effect of material non-compliance with an unless order under rule 39. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief complaint stood dismissed on 30 May 2025 as the automatic effect of material non-compliance with an unless order under rule 39. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 32(2)
- rule 32(3)
- rule 32(4)(b)
- rule 39
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23
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.