Case 2216641/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J. Mashangia v Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216641/2023
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- London Central ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J. Mashangia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37(1). It found that Ms J. Mashangia did not have the two years' qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and said there was nothing in the claim that made it exceptional. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claim had no realistic prospect of success at a final hearing.
The claimant also sought to amend her claim to add whistleblowing and automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal refused that application because she had been told at an earlier case management hearing in March, and again in writing in the June case management order, that an amendment application would be needed. The application was not made until two weeks before the preliminary hearing, the final hearing was already listed for January 2025, witness statements had been prepared, and allowing the amendment would prejudice the respondent and jeopardise the hearing date. The tribunal concluded that the balance of hardship favoured the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37(1) because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996, so the tribunal found the claim had no realistic prospect of success. The judgment says there were no exceptional circumstances. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.