Case 2300351/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Jennifer Ndhlovu v Hestia Housing and Support — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300351/2020
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jennifer Ndhlovu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJennifer Ndhlovu was an agency worker for Hestia Housing and Support. She told the respondent that she was pregnant on 24 April 2019, and her role ended with immediate effect on 27 June 2019. The claim form, presented on 26 January 2020, brought claims of unfair dismissal, sex, race and pregnancy discrimination, and notice pay. The tribunal recorded that the three-month time limit expired on 26 September 2019 and that the ACAS early conciliation process did not begin until 29 September 2019, three days after the limit had already expired.
The tribunal accepted that there was no good explanation for the delay in starting early conciliation or presenting the claim. The claimant said she did not know what to do until someone at church told her, and referred to morning sickness and anaemia, but she provided no medical evidence showing that she was unable to bring the claim in time. The tribunal held that, because the claim was brought well outside the time limit and there was no good reason to extend time, it was not just and equitable to allow the claims to proceed. It therefore struck out the claim.
The tribunal also held that the parties had entered into a binding COT3 agreement through ACAS. The claimant had accepted an offer of £447.30, being one week’s pay, and the COT3 was completed on 19 December 2019. The tribunal said that this would independently have been fatal to the claim, even if it had been in time.
After striking out the claim, the tribunal made a costs order under paragraph 76 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that it was unreasonable to continue after the respondent’s costs warning letter of 26 November 2020. Taking the claimant’s means into account, including that she was a single parent with part-time earnings of £15,000 a year, housing benefit covering her rent, universal credit of £256 a month, and no savings, the tribunal ordered her to pay the respondent £1,500 in costs.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim was struck out as out of time; the tribunal also held that a binding COT3 agreement precluded the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim was struck out as out of time; the tribunal also held that a binding COT3 agreement precluded the claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim was struck out as out of time; the tribunal also held that a binding COT3 agreement precluded the claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim was struck out as out of time; the tribunal also held that a binding COT3 agreement precluded the claim. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim described in the judgment as a notice pay claim; it was struck out with the rest of the claim as out of time and because the COT3 agreement was binding. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable criterion
- Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) costs test
- binding COT3 agreement
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.