Case 1311967/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss W Kindji v MCare24 Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1311967/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss W Kindji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 23 September 2025, Employment Judge Bennett heard oral evidence from Miss Kindji on time limits. The tribunal found her evidence honest and credible, and accepted that she was distressed by events. It also found that the difficulties in clarifying and framing the claims were due to her representative's actions or inaction rather than any default by the Claimant.
For the Employment Rights Act claims, the tribunal found that Miss Kindji had been prompted by a conversation with her manager in April 2024, after which she was concerned about her immigration position and said she needed to defend herself. It accepted that she was socially isolated, had been in the UK for around two years, and was anxious about supporting her family in Cameroon. However, she did not contact ACAS until 14 October 2024, more than five months later, and the tribunal found there was no significant event preventing earlier action and no medical evidence showing incapacity. It held that it was reasonably practicable to present both the holiday pay and breach of contract claims in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and those claims were dismissed.
For the Equality Act claims, the tribunal applied the just and equitable time-extension test, citing Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan, and Adedeji v University College Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust. It accepted there would be prejudice to the Claimant if no extension were granted, but found the discrimination and harassment allegations were not strong, the harassment allegation had been re-framed during the hearing, and the race nexus was not clear on the way the claims were presented. Balancing the five-month delay, the reasons advanced for it, and the moderate prejudice to both sides, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time and struck out the direct race discrimination and race-related harassment claims. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Outstanding holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for failure to provide weekly paid work of 40 hours. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim. The tribunal refused to extend time because it was not just and equitable to do so. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim described by the tribunal as race-related. The tribunal refused to extend time because it was not just and equitable to do so. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University College Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust
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.