Case 2305901/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Kuteh v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305901/2023
- Decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr E Kuteh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing concerned amendment, jurisdiction, strike out and deposit-order issues rather than final liability. The judgment records that the breach of contract complaint was struck out because the Tribunal concluded it did not have jurisdiction to consider it.
The Tribunal dismissed the Respondents' remaining strike-out application. It found that the victimisation complaint was well outside the primary time limit on its face, but that it was at least arguable, taking the Claimant's case at its highest, that the alleged victimisation formed part of the same course of conduct as an in-time harassment allegation about delay in resolving his grievance.
The Tribunal also recorded that allegations 14(f)(i), 14(f)(ii), 21(c)(i) and 21(c)(ii) were dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract was struck out because the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records an allegation of harassment related to race concerning delay in responding to the Claimant's grievance. It was not finally determined; the strike-out/deposit application did not remove it. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records an allegation of harassment related to disability concerning delay in responding to the Claimant's grievance. It was not finally determined; the strike-out/deposit application did not remove it. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The Respondents' application to strike out the victimisation complaint, or alternatively for a deposit order, was dismissed. The underlying complaint was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Allegations 14(f)(i), 14(f)(ii), 21(c)(i) and 21(c)(ii) on the list of issues were dismissed upon withdrawal. The truncated prompt text does not make clear which specific claim type those allegations belonged to. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 40 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- A v B and another [2011] ICR D9
- Cox v Adecco and ors [2021] ICR 1307
- HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694 EAT
- Hemdan v Ishmail and anor 2017 ICR 486
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.