Case 2305565/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Mwiti v Migrant Help UK — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305565/2024
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Mwiti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on 15 February 2024 and presented his unfair dismissal claim on 13 July 2024. The tribunal recorded that the claim should have been lodged by 14 May 2024 and that it was 57 days late.
The tribunal considered the claimant's explanations for delay, including lack of awareness of time limits, the respondent's appeal process, his hope that the dismissal would be overturned, concern about the respondent's reputation, and PTSD. It accepted that the claimant had PTSD, but found that this had not prevented him from submitting an ET1, particularly given the way he conducted his internal appeal and the advice and support available to him.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not proved it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It also stated, for completeness, that a further delay of 57 days would not have been a reasonable period, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing because it was presented out of time; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.