Case 2305733/2021 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the First v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2305733/2021
Decision date: 23 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Wright

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the First

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr A Amuni was a student nurse who completed a placement with Guys and St Thomas's NHS Trust from 27 July 2020 to 30 September 2020 and was then engaged as an Aspirant Nurse from 26 October 2020 to 31 December 2020. Claim 1 was presented on 3 December 2021 against all three respondents, and Claim 2 was presented on 14 March 2022 against the first and third respondents. Claim 2 included breach of contract, unfair dismissal, age, race, sex and sexual orientation discrimination, sexual harassment, and later an attempt to add protected disclosure allegations. The tribunal also noted that the claims against the second and third respondents in Claim 1 were rejected because there was no ACAS early conciliation certificate for either of them.

The tribunal dealt first with limitation. For unfair dismissal and breach of contract it applied the reasonable practicability test in s.111 ERA 1996 and Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. It assumed for the unfair dismissal analysis that the claim did not depend on two years' service, but found that the latest possible date for early conciliation was 30 March 2021. On that basis, Claim 1 was about eight months late and Claim 2 about 11 months late.

For the discrimination and harassment allegations, the tribunal applied s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and considered the Keeble factors, as well as Robertson, Adedeji, Palmer and Porter. The claimant said that alleged sexual harassment had caused anxiety, insomnia, reduced concentration and other symptoms, but the tribunal found there was no medical evidence and no sufficiently specific explanation of how those effects prevented him from bringing the claims in time. It accepted the respondents' prejudice arguments, including the lapse of time and the fact that the cases remained unclear, and held that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction and refused the application to amend the claim to add the second respondent and protected disclosure allegations. It held that allowing that amendment would be perverse in light of its time-limit findings, including that no timely whistleblowing claim had been shown.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit and the tribunal was not satisfied it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was out of time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 and no extension was granted.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	Dismissed as out of time under s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Age	—
Race discrimination	Dismissed as out of time under s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Race	—
Sex discrimination	Dismissed as out of time under s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sexual orientation discrimination	Dismissed as out of time under s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.