Case 1303050/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N G Nyenke v Kingsley Healthcare (Birmingham) Limited RECORD OF AN OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303050/2024
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hena Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N G Nyenke
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered whether the claimant should be permitted to amend her claim in line with further particulars dated 30 August 2024. The claimant was employed by Kingsley Healthcare (Birmingham) Limited as a Senior Support Worker from 12 September 2023 until she resigned on 4 January 2024, and she brought claims for discrimination and harassment on the grounds of race.
The Tribunal refused amendment permission for items 3, 4, 7 and 9 of the further particulars, finding that the proposed amendments for items 3, 4 and 9 were significant, out of time, and not supported by evidence that the claimant had been unaware of the relevant alleged acts at the time. Permission was granted for items 1 and 2 to include alleged acts of racial discrimination relating to Italian heritage as well as African background, and for items 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 to better particularise incidents.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Open preliminary hearing judgment on amendment applications only. The merits of the race discrimination claim were not adjudicated; some amendments were allowed and others refused. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Open preliminary hearing judgment on amendment applications only. The merits of the race harassment claim were not adjudicated. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Selkent Principles
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore
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.