Case 8000612/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sanya Ehsan v (1) Scottish Design Exchange — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000612/2023
- Decision date
- 22 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sanya Ehsan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the respondents' application to strike out the race discrimination complaints under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 was reframed as determination of the equivalent preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The Tribunal recorded that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaints of race discrimination because it had no jurisdiction to hear them. It found that they were presented outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal also found that the complaints were not presented within any other period it considered just and equitable for the purposes of section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | By consent, the respondents' strike-out application was reframed as a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The complaints of race discrimination were dismissed because they were presented outside the period in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and were not presented within such other period as the Tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
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.