Case 2300087/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Mahenga v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300087/2021
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Mahenga
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Norris sitting alone by CVP on 1 August 2022. The tribunal dealt with the claimant's direct race discrimination complaints, unfair dismissal claim, and breach of contract claim.
The tribunal struck out the race discrimination complaints about the variation of the claimant's employment contract and the alleged failure to investigate his grievance. It held those complaints were presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
Two further direct race discrimination complaints, concerning an alleged failure to investigate a complaint against Mr N Wright and the creation of a redundancy situation, were said to form part of a continuing act ending within time. The tribunal made no finding on whether the events complained of occurred or whether those complaints were in fact in time, and those complaints were allowed to proceed.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the tribunal held it was not presented within three months beginning with the effective date of termination under section 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The breach of contract claim concerning alleged contractual enhanced redundancy pay was also struck out because the entitlement did not arise and was not outstanding on termination, leaving no jurisdiction under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint about the variation of the claimant's employment contract. The tribunal found it was presented out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint about an alleged failure to investigate the claimant's grievance. The tribunal found it was presented out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint about a failure to investigate a complaint against Mr N Wright. The tribunal said it was part of a continuing act ending within time and allowed it to proceed; no finding was made on whether the events complained of took place or whether the complaint was in fact in time. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint about creating a redundancy situation. The tribunal said it was part of a continuing act ending within time and allowed it to proceed; no finding was made on whether the events complained of took place or whether the complaint was in fact in time. | Other | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was not presented within three months beginning with the effective date of termination under section 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore lacked jurisdiction. The judgment records that the claim was lodged on 8 January 2021, notice was given in March 2021, and employment ended on 28 April 2021. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable to extend time
- section 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 3 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.
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.