Case 1600147/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr F Donaldson v Cwm Taf Morgannwy University Local Health Board — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600147/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr F Donaldson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary jurisdiction judgment heard at Cardiff by CVP before Employment Judge C Sharp sitting alone on 3 August 2022. The Tribunal held that the Claimant's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed because they were presented outside the s111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time.
The Tribunal also held that the Claimant's direct race discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction insofar as they were brought outside the s123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Those findings disposed of the time-barred parts of the race claims only.
One allegation was treated differently: the complaint that the Respondent had not provided evidence and information in support of the disciplinary allegations from May 2017 to date was left to the final tribunal to determine, both on merits and on time limits, because the Claimant said it was a continuing act. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit in s111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit in s111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction insofar as it was presented outside the time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The allegation that the Respondent had not provided evidence and information in support of the disciplinary allegations from May 2017 to date was left to the final tribunal to determine on merits and time limits as a claimed continuing act. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction insofar as it was presented outside the time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The allegation that the Respondent had not provided evidence and information in support of the disciplinary allegations from May 2017 to date was left to the final tribunal to determine on merits and time limits as a claimed continuing act. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
- continuing act
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.