Case 2227184/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Primrose Matovu Namusisi v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and 4 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2227184/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Miss Primrose Matovu Namusisi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints arising from events in 2019, including direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination, unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, breach of contract and wrongful dismissal. The claim was presented on 5 December 2024, and the claimant accepted that it was out of time but relied on evidence discovered on 23 September 2024 concerning whether Mr O'Hara Green had been a paramedic.
The tribunal concluded that the new evidence did not give the claimant a reasonable basis for overcoming the time-limit issues. It found that the evidence about Mr O'Hara Green did not show that all of his evidence was untruthful, that there was another eyewitness, and that the point was not relevant to the breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, race discrimination or age discrimination complaints.
For the discrimination complaints, the tribunal considered the delay of over five years, forensic prejudice to the respondents, the claimant's explanation for delay, and the subject matter of the complaints. It concluded that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing that it was just and equitable to extend time, and struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant complained of direct race discrimination. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success, including on extension of time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant complained of direct age discrimination. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success, including on extension of time. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that the complaint was in time or that the new evidence made it not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant complained of unfair treatment after whistleblowing. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of showing the complaint was in time or that the new evidence made it not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant complained of breach of contract. The tribunal found the new evidence about Mr O'Hara Green was not relevant to this complaint and could not assist with the time-limit issue. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant complained of wrongful dismissal based on alleged failure to give notice. The tribunal found the new evidence about Mr O'Hara Green was not relevant to this complaint and could not assist with the time-limit issue. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Mechkarov v Citibank N.A
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- Employment Tribunal Rule 40(1)
- Amber v West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
- Equality Act 2010, s.123(1)
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
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.