Case 2226332/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Flora Gome Djedje v Community Integrated Care HELD AT: London Central (via CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2226332/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mellor REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Flora Gome Djedje
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Flora Gome Djedje, had continuous service with Community Integrated Care from 3 April 2019 until her dismissal with pay in lieu of notice on 2 January 2024. The tribunal recorded that she contacted ACAS on 23 February 2024, the early conciliation certificate was issued on 5 April 2024, and the latest date for issuing the claim was 5 May 2024. The claim was not presented until 28 October 2024, which the tribunal found was out of time for the Employment Rights Act claims and the discrimination claims alike.
For the unfair dismissal claim and the claim described as 'other payments - arrears of pay', the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The delay was attributed to the claimant's solicitor's misunderstanding about ongoing conciliation after the certificate was issued. The tribunal found that ACAS had warned about the time limit, that the solicitor knew of the limitation period, and that a draft ET1 was already prepared. It held that waiting for a response to settlement proposals did not make it impracticable to issue the claim, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and dismissed those claims.
The claimant also advanced disability and race discrimination complaints. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's race was black and that the disability case concerned weight and arthritis from around summer 2023, but it did not determine the merits because it refused to extend time. Applying the just and equitable discretion, the tribunal considered the five-month delay, the effect on recollection of earlier alleged events, the respondent's prejudice, the poor pleading of the ET1, and the fact that the claimant potentially had a remedy against her solicitor. Balancing those factors, it held that the prejudice to the respondent outweighed the prejudice to the claimant, so the discrimination complaints were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Pleaded as 'other payments' and described in the reasons as 'other payments - arrears of pay'; dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the same limitation basis as the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was brought about five months late and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was brought about five months late and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 140B Equality Act 2010
- Deadman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Governing Body of Sheredes School v Davies
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- Miller and Ors v Ministry of Justice
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble & Otrs
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.