Case 2208591/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Mills- Acquah v Queen Charlotte’s Chelsea Hospital AND CGS-CIMB Securities (UK) Ltd OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2208591/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Mills- Acquah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 9 May 2024, Employment Judge Nicolle held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Ms D Mills-Acquah's direct race discrimination claim or her claim of harassment related to race. The tribunal found that the claim had not been submitted within the time period required by section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also decided that it would not be just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The result was that neither the direct race discrimination claim nor the race-related harassment claim was allowed to proceed. Oral reasons were given to the parties at the hearing, with written reasons available on request.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the direct race discrimination claim because it was presented outside the section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 time limit, and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the race-related harassment claim because it was presented outside the section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 time limit, and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.