Case 1601835/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Miss N Kiyaga v BMJ Publishing Group Limited — 2019

Case reference: 1601835/2018
Decision date: 6 August 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Howden-Evans
Venue: Cardiff

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss N Kiyaga

Respondent

BMJ Publishing Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in Cardiff on 26 July 2019, Employment Judge Howden-Evans, sitting alone, heard submissions from both parties, the claimant’s evidence on oath, and considered the 231-page bundle. The issue before the tribunal was whether Miss N Kiyaga’s unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims had been presented within the relevant time limits.

The tribunal decided that both claims were presented within the relevant time limits under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010, and that it therefore had jurisdiction to hear them. This judgment did not determine the substantive merits of either claim.

No remedy was assessed in this decision. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was presented within the relevant time limit and that it had jurisdiction to hear it. No merits determination was made in this judgment.	Other	—	—
Race discrimination	Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal held the race discrimination claim was presented within the relevant time limit and that it had jurisdiction to hear it. No merits determination was made in this judgment.	Other	Race	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.