Case 1401390/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Kamara v Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401390/2021
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Kamara
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 4 November 2022 took place by video before Employment Judge Gray. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal recorded that it had earlier been expected to consider timeliness under s.123 of the Equality Act 2010, strike out issues under rule 37, and case management matters, but no witness statement or other evidence had been submitted by the claimant.
The tribunal understood the claim as having a last alleged act of discrimination in late October 2020 and noted that, whichever ACAS certificate was relied upon, the complaints were out of time. Because the claimant did not attend and had provided no explanation for the delay, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claim was therefore struck out. No merits findings were made and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal did not determine the merits of the claim. It found it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and struck out the claim after the claimant did not attend or provide evidence. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal did not determine the merits of the claim. It found it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and struck out the claim after the claimant did not attend or provide evidence. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.