Case 1400666/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M S K Sembhi v Bournemouth Borough Council — 2017
- Case reference
- 1400666/2017
- Decision date
- 8 December 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M S K Sembhi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a former Approved Mental Health Practitioner who had previously been dismissed by the respondent in 2010, brought these proceedings after an unsuccessful AMHP application in 2016. The preliminary hearing concerned time limits under s.48(3) ERA 1996, whether earlier detriment complaints formed part of a continuing series, and an application to amend the claim to add disability discrimination under ss.15, 20 and 21 EqA 2010. No substantive liability was determined at this stage.
The tribunal held that the complaint arising from the respondent's 9 November 2016 rejection of the claimant's application was in time because ACAS early conciliation extended the limitation period to 22 April 2017 and the claim was presented on 21 April 2017. By contrast, complaints about earlier non-shortlisting decisions and the alleged interference with a Dorset County Council application in 2012 were dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found that those matters were separated by years, involved different recruitment managers, and were not shown to be part of a continuing series of similar acts or failures.
On the amendment application, the tribunal allowed the claimant to add a disability discrimination claim limited to the October 2016 application. It accepted that the claimant did not know of the criticisms relied on until she received the respondent's grounds of resistance in May 2017 and held that it was just and equitable to extend time for that claim. It refused extension of time for discrimination claims based on the earlier applications and refused other proposed amendments. No financial award was made at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the complaint arising from the 9 November 2016 rejection of the claimant's AMHP application was presented in time and that it had jurisdiction to consider it. The merits of the detriment allegation were not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaints based on earlier non-shortlisting decisions, alleged applications made through agencies, and the alleged interference with the Dorset County Council application in 2012 were dismissed as out of time under s.48(3) ERA 1996. The tribunal found there was no reasonably arguable basis for treating them as part of a continuing series of similar acts or failures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Leave was granted to amend the claim to allege disability discrimination under ss.15, 20 and 21 EqA 2010 in relation to the October 2016 application only. The tribunal held that time should be extended for that claim on a just and equitable basis, but the substantive discrimination claim was not decided at this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48(3) ERA 1996
- s.123(1)(c) Equality Act 2010
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Barclays Bank v Kapur (1991 ICR 208)
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.