Case 1604158/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MS BENNETT (EQUALITY 4 BLACK NURSES) FOR THE v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1604158/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
MS BENNETT (EQUALITY 4 BLACK NURSES) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter remotely at Haverfordwest on 30 January 2025 before Employment Judge S Povey. The claimant was represented by Ms Bennett of Equality 4 Black Nurses and the respondent by Mr Langely of counsel. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal dismissed the complaints of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, detriment for making protected disclosures, failure to provide written reasons for dismissal and wrongful dismissal. It held that those complaints were presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time, and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to determine them. The dismissal was recorded under Rule 28 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaints of discrimination on grounds of race and disability, harassment on grounds of race and sex, and victimisation. It held that those complaints were presented out of time and were not brought within such further period as was just and equitable. No substantive merits findings are recorded in the written decision for those claims because the decision turned on jurisdiction and limitation.
To the extent that complaints under section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 or under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 were being pursued, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine them and dismissed them. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures dismissed because it was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it under Rule 28 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures dismissed because it was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it under Rule 28 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide written reasons for dismissal dismissed because it was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it under Rule 28 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal complaint dismissed because it was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it under Rule 28 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination complaint dismissed because it was presented out of time and not within such further period as was just and equitable. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Rule 28 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.