Case 2301293/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Williams v Ashford and St Peter's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301293/2022
- Decision date
- 9 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with limitation. Dr Williams brought claims for harassment related to race, direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and victimisation. ACAS early conciliation ran from 27 February 2022 to 14 March 2022, and the claim form was presented on 14 April 2022. Applying the three-month time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal treated 28 November 2021 as the relevant cut-off date.
The tribunal found that the allegations largely concerned events in 2020 and early to mid-2021, including occupational health reports, a grievance addendum, an investigation process and mediation or reconciliation sessions. It rejected the suggestion that the January 2022 discovery of a July 2021 enquiry by Ms Rankin to occupational health amounted to conduct extending over a period. Relying on Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust v Allen, the tribunal held that linked incidents and later discovery of earlier events were not enough; there had to be continuing discriminatory conduct, which it did not find.
On the just and equitable question, the tribunal said Dr Williams gave no credible explanation for waiting until April 2022 to present the claim. It noted that he was a doctor and had been represented throughout by the General Secretary of the Equal Justice Union. Although the evidence referred to a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder, the tribunal noted that this was not put forward in evidence as the reason for delay. Having weighed the prejudice to both sides, including the age of the events and the impact on the NHS Trust, the tribunal declined to extend time under section 123(1)(b) and struck out all claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claim listed as harassment related to race. The tribunal struck out all claims on limitation grounds under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and did not reach the merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim listed as direct race discrimination. The tribunal found no complaint occurred on or after 28 November 2021 and refused to extend time as just and equitable. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim listed as direct disability discrimination. It was struck out because the alleged conduct was out of time and no extension of time was granted. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim listed as discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal treated the relevant events as ending in July 2021 and held the claim was out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claim listed as victimisation. The tribunal struck out all claims on time-limit grounds and found no continuing discriminatory conduct after the cut-off date. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Services
- Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust v Allen
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.