Case 2201354/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Nzitonda v Barchester Healthcare Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201354/2023
- Decision date
- 9 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Cowen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Nzitonda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent as a senior nurse from 11 June 2015 until her employment was terminated on 31 August 2018. She had been absent from work due to poor health from 1 June 2016. The respondent accepted that she was disabled at the relevant time, but denied the claims and said she had been dismissed on capability grounds.
The tribunal found that the claims were brought substantially out of time. ACAS early conciliation began on 2 October 2018 and the certificate was issued on 17 October 2018. The claimant had submitted an earlier claim form, but it was rejected because it did not contain the ACAS certificate number. The claim before the tribunal was not received until 13 February 2023, more than four years after the relevant time limits had expired.
For the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about significant mental and physical health difficulties after dismissal, but found that there were periods between 2018 and 2023 when she was able to bring a claim. It concluded that the delay was very significant and would cause significant evidential prejudice, particularly because witness recollection would be important. It was therefore not just and equitable to extend time.
For the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claims within the applicable time limits because she knew of the limits, had contacted ACAS, and had submitted an earlier claim form before Christmas 2018. The tribunal also stated that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claims in time, the February 2023 claim was not presented within a reasonable further period. All claims were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time, but the tribunal held the disability discrimination claims were presented outside the Equality Act 2010 time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The holiday pay claim framed as unauthorised deductions was held out of time under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996, with no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The holiday pay claim framed as breach of contract was held out of time under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, with no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was held out of time under regulation 30(2), with no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- section 123(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- just and equitable extension of time
- section 33 Limitation Act 1980 factors
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Pathan v South London Islamic Centre
- Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd
- reasonably practicable test
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- section 112 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 2 Employment Tribunals 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.