Case 1300914/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Aissatou Bah v Primark Stores Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1300914/2022
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Aissatou Bah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied to amend her claim form to add multiple fresh factual allegations which the tribunal considered would change the basis of the claim. All but four of those allegations had already been refused as amendments by Judge Battisby, with the remaining four left for further particulars and submissions on any extension of time.
Employment Judge Mensah heard from the claimant in person and from counsel for the respondent. The judge recorded that flexibility was applied because the claimant was a litigant in person, including allowing further opportunity to explain her case beyond her further and better particulars and witness statement.
The tribunal refused the application to amend the claim to add the four new claims identified in Judge Battisby's order. It also refused the application to extend time for the claim brought outside the primary limitation period, identified in the claim form as a single incident on 31 August 2021. As there were no surviving claims, the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination. The judgment itself records that the application to amend was refused, the application to extend time for the original claim was refused, and with no surviving claims the claim was dismissed; it does not set out the factual merits of the discrimination allegation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.