Case 2210207/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jerome Kumedzina First v London Fire Commissioner Second Respondent: Mr Andy Roe — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210207/2023
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jerome Kumedzina First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Woodhead, sitting alone, heard the case at London Central on 2 October 2023 and 20 October 2023. The tribunal recorded two claims: direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and a detriment claim pursuant to section 48(1A) in relation to protected disclosure.
Both claims were dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that the race discrimination claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It reached the same overall result for the protected disclosure detriment claim, finding that it had not been presented in time and that it was reasonably practicable to do so.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the direct race discrimination claim under section 13 EqA 2010 was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held the detriment claim pursuant to section 48(1A) protected disclosure was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend the time limit
- reasonably practicable to do so
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.