Ms Mangoma v Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

Ms Mangoma was dismissed on 17 April 2019 and presented her claim on 18 April 2023. The hearing was concerned with amendment and limitation issues rather than the final merits. On 20 May 2024 she sought to add three further race-related complaints. The tribunal refused the proposed amendments concerning an HCPC referral and the November 2022 IBMS exam result because they were insufficiently particularised, speculative or unconnected to the pleaded case, and materially out of time. It allowed the amendment concerning information shared by Ms Ellis with Ms Fox because that point was sufficiently identified and closely connected to the existing claim.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the not reasonably practicable test under s.111 ERA 1996, together with the principles in Palmer and Crouchman. It found the complaint was about three years and nine months late. Ms Mangoma knew at the time that she had been dismissed for alleged BAC Code breaches, and the SAR disclosure did not reveal a crucial new fact that prevented her from bringing a claim. The tribunal also found that her decision not to read the SAR disclosure for 21 months, or to seek advice on it, was not reasonable. The holiday pay complaint also failed on limitation, with no adequate evidence of the sums said to be owed or any reason why it could not have been brought in time.

For the direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints, the tribunal applied s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable discretion in Abertawe v Morgan. It treated the pleaded allegations and the third amendment as a continuing act ending on 20 July 2021, so the limitation period expired around 19 October 2021 and the claim was about 18 months late. The tribunal held that only the first alleged disclosure to OUH and the third amendment depended on material later seen in the SAR disclosure; the other alleged acts were known when they happened. It rejected an extension of time because the delay in reading the disclosure, the limited medical evidence, and the fact that Ms Mangoma was able to work, instruct solicitors, pursue grievances and appeals, and issue proceedings did not justify the delay. The tribunal also said the pleaded discrimination case amounted to bare assertions without facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. The claim in its entirety was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.