Case 2203859/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Okey Ngwuocha of Carl Martin Solicitors For the First v Ms Chloe Pereira of Outset Limited For the Third Respondent: — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203859/2022
- Decision date
- 30 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Okey Ngwuocha of Carl Martin Solicitors For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mohammed Ali brought consolidated claims against BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Property Management UK Ltd, Ward Security Limited and Ms Alessandra Demurtas arising from alleged comments said to amount to race discrimination and discrimination because of religion or belief. The tribunal found that Mr Ali was employed by Ward Security, that BNP Paribas was not his employer, and that Ms Demurtas was an employee of BNP Paribas. It also found that the claimant's original ET1 and his clarification before Employment Judge Heath did not include a pleaded discrimination claim against Ward Security, and that he had expressly said he was not alleging Ward Security discriminated against him because of race or religion or belief.
The tribunal struck out the claims against the first and third respondents under rule 37 because there was no relationship giving rise to liability under Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010. It held that the claimant could not proceed against BNP Paribas as a principal or employer and that there was no basis for the claims against Ms Demurtas. The tribunal also rejected reliance on section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 because the necessary basic contravention between the relevant parties was not available.
Mr Ali later applied to amend the claim so as to allege that Ward Security had itself discriminated against him and had acted unlawfully in relation to the site removal, investigation, suspension and grievance process. The tribunal refused the amendment under the Selkent principles, holding that it was a substantial change from the case previously advanced, that the new complaints were outside the three-month time limit, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It noted that the ordinary limitation period for the 14 February 2022 incident expired on 13 May 2022, that ACAS was not contacted until 8 and 9 June 2022, and that the claimant had not given a cogent explanation for the delay despite being able to communicate with the respondents and referring to legal and union assistance. The claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claim concerned alleged race-based comments by Ms Alessandra Demurtas in August 2021, late November 2021 and January 2022, and the later removal from the Old Broad Street site. The tribunal held that the claims against the first and third respondents had no reasonable prospect of success because there was no relationship giving rise to liability, and it refused the later amendment against Ward Security; the claim was also found to be out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claim concerned alleged comments said to mock the claimant's religion and faith, together with the removal from site after the complaint. The tribunal held that the claims against the first and third respondents had no reasonable prospect of success because there was no relationship giving rise to liability, and it refused the later amendment against Ward Security; the claim was also found to be out of time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | This covers the claimant's non-discrimination complaints against Ward Security about duty of care, grievance and investigation handling, removal from site, suspension and related matters. The tribunal held that the original pleading disclosed no cause of action, refused the amendment that sought to recast these matters as discrimination, and found the complaints to be out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- Rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.41 Equality Act 2010
- s.111 Equality Act 2010
- s.120 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor
- Williams v Real Care Agency Ltd
- Unite the Union v Nailard
- Conteh v Parking Partners Ltd
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.