Ms A Williams v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd: 3301692/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3301692/2024
Between
Ms A WilliamsClaimantVirgin Atlantic Airways LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge M WarrenIn person for claimantMr Jonathan Cook (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 1 August 2025
REASONS
The Issues
[1]Ms Williams was employed as Cabin Crew by the Respondent between 27 March and 18 April 2023. After Early Conciliation between 1 December 2023 and 12 January 2024, she issued these proceedings on 9 February 2024 claiming automatic unfair dismissal, (she says she was dismissed because she had asked for representation at the disciplinary hearing) and also sex, age and race discrimination.[2]The case is listed for a five day hearing in Reading commencing 9 March 2026.[3]The matter came before Employment Judge Palmer on 23 April and on 1 May 2025 and he set up this Public Preliminary Hearing so that the Tribunal could consider an application for a Restrictive Reporting and an Anonymisation Order, to identify the issues in the case, to consider time points in relation to both the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims and to consider an application by Ms Williams to add two individuals as Respondents.[4]We started yesterday with a Case Management Preliminary Hearing in private at which a Restrictive Reporting Order and an Anonymisation Order was made. That decision is recorded separately.[5]The individual concerned will be referred to as Witness X.[6]I have had before me written submissions from Mr Cook, for which I am grateful, I had those in advance. I also had a draft List of Issues, which we were able to work with, a Bundle prepared by the Respondent’s Solicitors and I had three witness statements: one from Ms Williams and then for the Respondents, one from Ms Bach and one from Ms Clarke. I heard evidence from all three of them.[7]I read the witness statements and the various documents as were relevant before starting the hearing yesterday.
The Issues
[8]Having made the Rule 49 Order, we proceeded to review the Respondent’s draft List of Issues, which broadly speaking, had fairly accurately represented Ms Williams claims. We spent some time going through that List of Issues carefully, making amendments and deletions as we went along. That took us to the end of Day 1.[9]Overnight, Mr Cook updated the List of Issues, amending it to reflect our discussions from the previous day. We reviewed that re-draft when we started this morning. Ms Williams confirmed that it accurately represented her case as she wished to advance it.[10]It was of course important to establish the issues before we went any further, so that we all properly understood Ms Williams’ case before we considered any questions over whether there were continuing acts of discrimination or whether it was just and equitable to extend time, if any of the allegations were out of time.[11]Of significance in reviewing the List of Issues yesterday, is that Ms Williams clarified that she did not rely upon events in October 2023 as allegations of discrimination and therefore any question of there being a continuing act leading up to those events fell away.[12]The primary issue on time in the discrimination case is that the last incident relied upon is now that on 15 and then 16 May 2023. Time expired on 15 August 2023. The question becomes, whether it is just and equitable to extend time from then to the issue of proceedings on 9 February 2024; some six months later. If it is just and equitable to extend time, then the question of whether there are continuing acts of discrimination arises between the events of April 2023 and that of May 2023.[13]In relation to the unfair dismissal complaint, the question is of course one of reasonable practicability in terms of issuing that claim before the three months expired on 17 July 2023; the claim being issued seven months late.[14]I set out below the final agreed list of issues, by way of cutting and pasting. The Claimant is a Black British Female who was 40 years of age on the dates the alleged discrimination occurred. Time Limits Automatically Unfair Dismissal The Claimant was dismissed on 18th April 2023.[2]The ET1 was presented on 9th February 2024 and therefore the automatically unfair dismissal claim is prima facie out of time. The Tribunal will consider: 2.1. Was it reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time? 2.2. If not, did the Claimant present her claim within a further reasonable period after the expiry of the three-month time limit? Discrimination[3]Did the Claimant bring her claims of discrimination within three months (plus any extension by operation of the early conciliation provisions) of the acts complained of?[4]Insofar as any of the discrimination claims are prima facie out of time, was there conduct extending over a period including at least one well-founded allegation which is prima facie in time?[5]If not, is it just and equitable to extend time? Automatically Unfair Dismissal (section 12 (3) (a) Employment Relations Act 1999) and Part X Employment Rights Act 1996[6]What was the reason or principal reason for the Claimant’s dismissal? The Claimant avers that she was dismissed because she exercised or sought to exercise the right, pursuant to section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999, to be accompanied to a disciplinary hearing as per section 12 (3) (a) Employment Relations Act 1999. The Respondent avers that she was dismissed for capability and/or Some Other Substantial Reason, that is that the Claimant failed to pass proscribed examinations which were part of the New Hire Cabin Crew training. Direct Sex Discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010)[7]Did the following amount to less favourable treatment: 7.1. The Claimant’s dismissal on 18th April 2023?[8]If so, was that less favourable treatment because of the Claimant’s sex? The Claimant relies upon the following as actual comparators: 8.1. Alexander Gardner (male) arriving late for the first training session on 29th March 2023, missing an examination and being allowed to take the examination later that day, who was not dismissed for the aforementioned lateness. 8.2. Ryan Blundell (male) who was not dismissed for being intoxicated on 14th April 2023.[9]The Tribunal will decide whether the circumstances of the comparators were the same as the Claimant’s in all material respects but for the protected characteristic of sex. Direct Age Discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010)[10]Did the following amount to less favourable treatment: 10.1. The Claimant’s dismissal on 18th April 2023?[11]If so, was that less favourable treatment because of the Claimant’s age? The Claimant relies upon the following as actual comparators: 11.1. Alexander Gardner (in his early to mid-20’s) arriving late for the first training session on 29th March 2023, missing an examination and being allowed to take the examination later that day, who was not dismissed for the aforementioned lateness; 11.2. Almira Mwamba (age 19) being late for an examination in the week commencing 27th March 2023, being late and missing an examination on a second occasion on other non-examination days without this being managed by trainers or her being dismissed; 11.3. Ryan Blundell, Megan Castell, Caitlyn Harffey, Grace Orrell, Amy Greaves, Isabelle Robson, C Tanner and Molly-Anna Pennington (all in teens and 20s) who were not dismissed for being intoxicated on 14th April 2023.[12]The Tribunal will decide whether the circumstances of the comparators were the same as the Claimant’s in all material respects but for the protected characteristic of age. Direct Race Discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010)[13]Did the following occur as alleged by the Claimant: 13.1. on 11th April 2023 Mr John Lobo-Pires remarking to the Claimant at a meeting “you are getting there with your results” but telling Emma Harland (white) and Witness X (white) at the meeting “you are both going in the right direction”; 13.2. on 11th April 2023 Mr John Lobo-Pires advising Emma Harland and Witness X to use their time before the third examination to do extra revision with the trainer in the riggs but suggesting the Claimant go home to study; 13.3. on 12th April 2023 Bernard Stewart advising Witness X that perhaps they could find her a role more suited to her abilities but not discussing a more suited role for the Claimant with her; 13.4. making a decision to dismiss the Claimant in 65 minutes whilst taking more than 150 minutes to decide whether to dismiss Witness X; 13.5. Helena Bach commenting to the Claimant at the end of the probation review meeting on 18th April 2023 that the Claimant had conducted herself in a dignified manner thereby showing she had prejudged the Claimant as an “animalistic angry black woman stereotype”. Ms Bach also asking for her comment not to be included in the notes of the meeting; 13.6. Deciding on 18th April 2023 that the Claimant would not be allowed to re-enter the training programme after six months without having to re-apply, and not enabling the Claimant to redeploy; 13.7. the Claimant’s dismissal on 18th April 2023; 13.8. Helena Bach not ensuring that Christina Clarke was informed that the Claimant was a leaver in relation to her application for the Administrator – Crew Records and Leave role. 13.9. Christina Clarke deciding the Claimant was no longer eligible to interview for the Administrator - Crew Records and Leave role on 15th May 2023 because she had failed her cabin crew examinations; 13.10. Vicky Perrin advised on 16th May 2023 that the Claimant’s interview should have proceeded (see page 160), but the Respondent failed to invite the Claimant to a rescheduled interview.[14]Insofar as the above occurred, did it to amount to less favourable treatment?[15]If so, was any such less favourable treatment because of the Claimant’s race? The Claimant relies upon the comparators identified at §§11.1 and 11.3 above and Witness X.[16]The Tribunal will decide whether the circumstances of the comparators were the same as the Claimant’s in all material respects but for the protected characteristic of race. Remedy Unfair Dismissal
Remedy
[17]Is the Claimant entitled to a basic award? If so, in what amount?[18]Should any reduction be made to the basic award for contributory conduct? The Tribunal will decide: 18.1. Was the Claimant’s conduct culpable or blameworthy? 18.2. If so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the basic award? By what amount?[19]If there is a compensatory award, how much should it be? The Tribunal will decide: 19.1. What financial losses has the dismissal caused to the Claimant? 19.2. Has there been an unreasonable failure by the Claimant to mitigate her losses? If so, for what period of loss should the Claimant be compensated? 19.3. If the Claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed, would the Claimant have been dismissed in any event for a reason that was not automatically unfair? If so, should the Claimant’s compensation be reduced? By how much? 19.4. Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance procedures apply? 19.5. If so, did either the Claimant or the Respondent unreasonably fail to comply with it? 19.6. If so, would it be just and equitable to increase or decrease any compensatory award payable to the Claimant? By what percentage of up to 25%? 19.7. Was the Claimant’s conduct culpable or blameworthy? 19.8. If so, did that culpable or blameworthy conduct cause or contribute to her dismissal? 19.9. If so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award? By what amount? Discrimination[20]What financial losses has any proven discrimination caused the Claimant?[21]Has there been an unreasonable failure by the Claimant to mitigate her losses? If so, for what period of loss should the Claimant be compensated?[22]What injury to feelings has any proven discrimination caused to the Claimant? What compensation should be awarded for that?[23]Is there a chance the Claimant’s employment would have ended in any event? Should her compensation be reduced accordingly and by what amount?[24]Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply?[25]If so, did either the Claimant or the Respondent unreasonably fail to comply with it?[26]If so, is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any compensation payable to the Claimant? By what percentage of up to 25%? The Law Time – The Equality Act 15. Section 123 of the Equality Act requires that any complaint of discrimination within the Act must be brought within three months of the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or such other period as the Tribunal thinks just and equitable. Where there is conduct extending over a period, it is to be treated as having been done at the end of that period. 16. There is no requirement to apply any check list under the wide discretion afforded tribunals by s123(1). The only requirement is not to leave a significant factor out of account. There is no requirement that the Tribunal must be satisfied that there was a good reason for any delay; the absence of a reason or the nature of the reason are factors to take into account, (paragraph 25), see Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] EWCA Civ 640 17. The discretion is a broad one, meaning that all relevant factors should be considered, including in particular the length and any reason for the delay, see Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23.18. In the case of Robertson v Bexley Community Services [2003] IRLR 434 the Court of Appeal stated that time limits are exercised strictly in Employment Law and there is no presumption, when exercising discretion on the just and equitable question, that time should be extended. Nevertheless, this is a matter which is in the Tribunal’s discretion.19. That has to be tempered with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Caston [2010] IRLR 327 where it was observed that although Lord Justice Auld in Robertson had noted that time limits are to be enforced strictly, his judgment had also emphasised the wide discretion afforded to Employment Tribunals.20. More recently in Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2024 EWCA Civil 1568 the Court of Appeal suggested that there was much to be said for focussing less on Bexley and more on some of the other Court of Appeal authorities, such as those summarised by Leggatt LJ in Morgan.21. The onus is on the Claimant to persuade the tribunal that there is some good reason why it would be just and equitable to extend time, see Wells Cathedral School Ltd v Souter UKEAT/2020/00801.22. A tribunal should consider the potential merits of the case and the balance of prejudice, see Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd [2016] ICR 283 EAT23. Where there is no explanation for the delay, the test must still be applied and it is not a foregone conclusion that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, see Concentrix CVT Intelligent Contract Ltdv Obi [2022]EAT 229 and Owen v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2023] EAT 106 . If the claim is strong but there is no explanation for the delay, the lack of reason is not determinative and one should still do the balancing exercise, see Szmidt v AC Produce UKEAT/0291/14. Time – unfair dismissal24.Section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires that a complaint of unfair dismissal must be presented to the tribunal before the end of 3 months from the date of dismissal, or if that is not reasonably practicable, within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.25. The question of whether it was reasonably practicable to bring a claim in time is a question of fact for the Tribunal. The onus is on the Claimant to show that it was not reasonably practicable, (Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943 CA). 26. The expression, “reasonably practicable” has been held to mean, “reasonably feasible” applying common sense. See Palmer v Southend Borough Council 1984 IRLR 119 CA.
The Law
[27]In Wall’s Meat Co. Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52 Brandon LJ said: “The performance of an act, in this case the presentation of a complaint, is not reasonably practicable if there is some impediment which reasonably prevents, or interferes with, or inhibits, such performance.”[28]In Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan 2005 IRLR 565 the Court of Appeal held that regard should be had to what, if anything, the employee knew about the right to complain and of the time limit. Ignorance of either does not necessarily render it not, “reasonably practicable” to issue a claim in time. One should also ask what the Claimant ought to have known if he or she had acted reasonably in the circumstances. Timeline of Events[29]Ms Williams was employed as Cabin Crew, (her contract described her as Cabin Crew) from 12 March to 18 April 2023, which is a period of 22 days.[30]She did, however, have to complete a training course successfully before she was able to participate in Cabin Crew duties operationally. Unfortunately, Ms Williams failed at the third and final attempt to pass the final test that she needed to get through to become operational and that was in respect of a viva voce held on 12 April 2023.[31]The first allegations relate to remarks alleged to have been made to her on 11 April 2023 after the second fail and before the third and final fail. This is allegations 13.1 and 13.2.[32]There was a Probation Meeting on 12 April 2023 and the third allegation, 13.3, is about possible suitable alternative work not being discussed with her and further comments being made, these being allegations 13.4 and 13.5.[33]Ms Williams was dismissed at that meeting on 18 April 2023, allegation 13.7 is that the act of dismissal was an act of race discrimination. The dismissal is also the sole allegation of discrimination in respect of sex and age.[34]Ms Williams was, however, allowed a further period of seven days to apply for re-deployment to any vacancy that might arise with the Respondent organisation. She would be given priority in any such application. That is in accordance with the Respondent’s standard procedures. She was also told that she would be able to re-apply for Cabin Crew after a period of six months as and when vacancies arose; that would entail going through an application and selection process again. That is the subject of allegation 13.6.[35]On 19 April 2023, Ms Williams saw on Instagram a post by her former colleague, Witness X, who is white female and who had also failed at the same time as she had having been interviewed at the same time. Witness X had posted, “I’m going to re-apply in six months”. In her witness statement at paragraph 6, Ms Williams suggests she saw this as suggesting Witness X was going to get different treatment.[36]On 28 April 2023, Ms Williams applied for another role, (page 274) the role of Administrator / Crew Records & Leave. She ran into technical problems in submitting her application, as noted at page 278. Ms Bach said that she would resolve that for her. That she apparently failed to so is the subject of allegation 13.8.[37]On 15 May 2023, Ms Williams was scheduled for interview in respect of the Administrator role. When she logged in, she was told that she was not going to be interviewed; allegation 13.9. The background is that the Respondent thought that she had misled them by putting on her CV that she was Cabin Crew. More of that later.[38]On 16 May 2023, Ms Clarke received an email from a Ms Perrin, (page 160). This was in response to an email Ms Clarke had sent which set out the background to Ms Williams’ application, from which it appeared it had been overlooked that she was a Leaver entitled to re-deployment. She suggests, “I do think that we should’ve continued with Antonia’s interview as the withdrawal of this could leave us open to a discrimination claim. Please let me know your thoughts and if you’d like to rearrange her interview.”[39]This is the subject of allegation 13.10. It should be noted that Ms Williams did not know of the existence of this email until she saw it in the Bundle prepared for this hearing.[40]On 18 May 2023, Ms Williams saw a photograph of Witness X on Instagram in the Respondent’s uniform and so apparently, still in the Respondent’s employment.[41]On 20 October 2023, Ms Williams saw an Instagram post by Witness X which led her to believe that Witness X was returning to Cabin Crew training. At that point, the six month period was only just up and so she gathered that Witness X must have gone straight to training, without having gone through the application and selection process.[42]On 23 October 2023, Ms Williams put her suspicions to the test, emailing Ms Perrin, (page 152) asking whether her six months were now up and could she apply for Cabin Crew again. She was told that yes, her six months were up and she would be welcome to make an application as and when there were vacancies, there were none at that time.[43]On 16 November 2023, there were Instagram posts which revealed to Ms Williams that Witness X was back in training for Cabin Crew.[44]On 1 December 2023, Ms Williams submitted a grievance and a Subject Access Request. She also on that day, started ACAS Early Conciliation.[45]She received a Grievance Outcome on 7 February 2024, (page 166) and issued these proceedings, as I have said, on 9 February 2024; two days later. Unfair Dismissal Claim[46]First I will deal with the question in respect of the unfair dismissal claim.[47]Was it reasonably practicable for her to have issued the claim in time? She was dismissed on 18 April 2023 and therefore she should have either issued proceedings, or started Early Conciliation, by 17 July 2023.[48]Ms Williams says the reason for dismissal was that she had indicated she would like a Trade Union Representative present at her Final Probationary Meeting. In response to which, Ms Bach is said to have sighed. That was in a conversation on 12 April 2023.[49]The reasonably practicable test is a high bar. Ms Williams has shown that she is an intelligent and literate person. This is apparent from her CV. There are no practical or intellectual impediments for her researching and finding out her rights. She was a member of a union, (she asked to be accompanied by a Union Representative) so she could have sought advice from her union. Furthermore, quite apart from all of that, her CV shows and she agrees, that she had previously worked as an Employment Tribunal Clerk. She confirmed in evidence that was between August 2022 and March 2023, a period of seven months. Working in that environment, she would have been very well aware of the importance of time limits in Employment Tribunal proceedings, whether that is in relation to unfair dismissal or discrimination. It is highly unlikely that she would not have been aware of the three month time limits. She accepted in evidence that she was aware.[50]In those circumstances, it is very clear that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been issued in time and therefore the unfair dismissal claim is dismissed for having been issued out of time. Extension of Time[51]Now I turn to whether it is just and equitable to extend time in respect of the discrimination claims, for they are undoubtedly out of time. For the sex and age discrimination claims of course, time runs there from dismissal. For the race discrimination claim time runs from 16 May 2023, which is the last act of alleged discrimination, ignoring for the moment the question of whether there was any continuing act. Time expired on 15 August 2023.[52]I have regard to the period of Early Conciliation, this is the ACAS Conciliation. Technically that does not as a matter of Law serve to stop time, because of course time has already run out. Early Conciliation was started after the expiry of three months. Nonetheless, I think in the balancing exercise it is right that one should be less critical of delay in a circumstance such as this, during a period of Early Conciliation.[53]Nonetheless, the claims remain 6 months late. It is clear that Ms Williams had knowledge of all the relevant facts in relation to her claim by 15 May 2023.[54]As I have said, she did not see the email of 16 May 2023 until she saw the Bundle. So that is not a factor in analysing her decision making at this point. It might be a factor on the just and equitable point on merits, which I will come to later.[55]Ms Williams is adamant that as a black woman, she has experienced racism, often unintentional but nonetheless racism. There is no doubt in her mind, she says, that she was subject to racism in this case in the circumstances of the allegations appearing in the List of Issues. I do not doubt her feelings in that respect.[56]However, the law says you have to issue proceedings or start Early Conciliation within three months.[57]I understand that Ms Williams says that she needed to think carefully and I understand her point about hoping to return to the Respondent’s employment and get back to Cabin Crew after the requisite three month hiatus. It is also right to say, of course, that everybody who is subject to discrimination needs time and ought to take time, to think about what they want to do about it.[58]From 15 May 2023, the law says you have a period of three months to think about it before you start Early Conciliation and then of course, such further period as the Early Conciliation through ACAS takes.[59]In the context of what happens here, not only do we have an intelligent person who can find out her rights and had access to a union, but also a person who had experience working in an Employment Tribunal, which would have given her a unique knowledge. I accept of course, nothing like the knowledge that a lawyer would have. However, she would have been well aware from her work, of the issues of time in Employment Tribunal proceedings.[60]In my judgement there is no reasonable explanation for the delay. This is not the end of the matter. I have to consider, for example, the prejudice to the parties. There is prejudice to Ms Williams if her claim is struck out for being out of time, because she will be unable to pursue her claims of discrimination, which I don’t doubt she genuinely feels.[61]There is also a prejudice to the Respondents. The passage of time will have undoubtedly affected the cogency of evidence. It is evident from the grievance investigation carried out between December 2023 and February 2024, that individuals were unable to recall what had been said some eight months earlier at that time and of course, by the final hearing of this case in March 2026, that will then be three years later. There is also prejudice to the Respondents in that a couple of witnesses have left their employment and are reluctant witnesses; I was taken to emails, (pages 350 and 351). Of course witnesses can be compelled to attend and give evidence, but in real practical terms, there is no doubt that a reluctant witness, or an unco-operative witness, puts a party, whether that is the Respondent or the Claimant, at a disadvantage.[62]Also relevant in my decision making about whether it is just and equitable to extend time, are the merits of the case. Just to emphasise, I am not deciding the case on its merits, it is just that where there is a strong case, that indicates that it is more likely to be just and equitable to extend time.[63]What we have here is that Ms Williams failed the necessary test to be passed as operational as a Cabin Crew member three times. This is the Aerospace industry and clearly, matters such as this are safety critical. What occurred was in accordance with the Respondent’s prescribed procedures, with a high element of objectivity. It seems unlikely in those circumstances that the reason for dismissal was race.[64]I pause for a moment to consider the comparators which Ms Williams has offered. Section 23 of the Equality Act 2010 talks about comparators not being in materially different circumstances. In respect of Witness X, this is a woman who is white, who at the same time failed that test and went through the same probation process but, on Ms Williams’ case, the Respondents spent more time talking to her, found her re-deployment and let her back into the Cabin Crew training program after a period of six months, without requiring re-application.[65]What I heard was that Witness X was pre-menopausal and that she raised this at the post fail Probation Meeting and explained how the symptoms had affected her performance: heightened anxiety, a lack of self-belief, disrupted sleep, hot sweats at night and distractions during the exams exacerbating those problems. One can immediately see why this comparator is in materially different circumstances. She is not an appropriate actual comparator and so one can see why that interview would have taken longer and why the Respondent would have explored adjustments that it could have made in relation to what it was being told by Witness X. There is a potential for claims of disability discrimination in these circumstances and they made the adjustments of finding her alternative employment in a Travel shop, allowing her straight back onto the course after six months. Many would say this was laudable action on the part of the Respondent.[66]What of the other comparators Ms Williams raises? Eight of them were discovered to have been drinking alcohol during a lunch break during the training process and of course, alcohol and aeroplanes do not mix. This is a serious matter and action was taken, but it is not comparable to failing three times a necessary test to be passed as Cabin Crew. There are materially different circumstances.[67]Two other comparators were late for training or for exams and again, that is materially different from something as serious as three times failing a necessary test.[68]Lest it be thought that I am being unduly dismissive of these comparators, I am not. I am simply pointing out that they are not what we could call actual comparators. The Tribunal would still be entitled look at those individuals by way of background facts as potentially indicators of a difference in treatment, but it seems to me that the link is tenuous.[69]I also noted, drawn to my attention (page 349), some statistics from 2023: 37 people failed the relevant tests, 32 of whom were dismissed. They were a broad mix of individuals in terms of sex, race and age. Of those, two were re-engaged. One was Witness X and the other was a black African woman.[70]More troubling from the Respondent’s perspective on the issue of merits I think, is Ms Clarke apparently ignoring advice that she should review her decision not to interview Ms Williams. This is something which has only recently come to light, but if there were a hearing on this case, it is evidence Ms Williams would be entitled to draw upon. However, the evidence which I have heard is that the concern of Ms Clarke and her manager, was that Ms Williams had misled them on her CV, by suggesting that she had Cabin Crew experience. When they carried out checks preinterview, they had seen that she had failed the exams and did not have operational experience as Cabin Crew.[71]That is an understandable position for Ms Clarke and her Manager to have taken and ultimately, I do not think that it is likely to assist Ms Williams in getting home on her race discrimination claim.[72]Ultimately, I do not think that Ms Williams would succeed in her complaint of race discrimination and certainly, it is not a strong enough complaint to persuade me that it would be just and equitable to extend time.[73]Therefore, the race discrimination claim is also struck out and is dismissed because it was out of time. Approved by: