Case 2300189/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs F Mutasa v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300189/2022
- Decision date
- 12 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs F Mutasa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. Employment Judge Barker held that Mrs F Mutasa did not have two years' service with Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Limited and had not otherwise established that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The tribunal also struck out the claimant's claim for unpaid notice monies. The judgment records that evidence was presented, and not disputed by the claimant, showing that her notice monies had been paid on termination of employment. On that basis the tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
The respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's race discrimination claims, pleaded as direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation, were refused. The respondent's separate application for an order requiring a deposit in order for those claims to continue was also refused. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service and had not otherwise established jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Described in the judgment as a claim for unpaid notice monies; struck out because the tribunal accepted evidence, which the claimant did not dispute, that notice monies had been paid on termination. | Struck out | — | — |
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.