Case 1401571/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bains v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401571/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bains
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to add allegations based on the rejection of his grievance on 17 May 2024 and the alleged failure to deal with his grievance appeal. It held that these were new complaints raised very substantially out of time, that they could have been included earlier, and that the explanation that they had been omitted because of lack of legal representation and stress-related ill health was not sufficient.
On jurisdiction, the tribunal found that the last act relied on for the existing claims was the referral to the NMC on 9 November 2023. The ordinary three-month time limit therefore expired on 8 February 2024. Early conciliation was not started until 9 April 2024, so it did not extend time, and the ET1 presented on 21 June 2024 was more than four months late.
For the protected disclosure detriment complaints, the tribunal found the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. For the Equality Act complaints, it found the claimant had not shown that a just and equitable extension should be granted, taking into account the lack of a good reason for delay and the likely prejudice to the respondent from the passage of time. The tribunal therefore concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal treated the pleaded direct race discrimination complaints as out of time and declined to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The pleaded harassment related to race complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was out of time and it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint was dismissed as out of time for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The detriment because of protected disclosures complaints were dismissed because the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable test was not met and the claim was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Selkent factors
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Southwark London Borough v Alfolabi
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.