Case 2400689/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400689/2020
- Decision date
- 18 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Kumari
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination, including harassment, against her former employer. The preliminary hearing considered whether the tribunal had jurisdiction because of the date on which the claim was presented. The claimant had resigned in around May 2019, worked a notice period, contacted ACAS on 16 January 2020, and presented her claim on 27 January 2020.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. It found there was no real evidence of anything that would have prevented her from taking the same steps in summer 2019 as she later took after contacting Citizens Advice and ACAS. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
For race discrimination, the tribunal considered alleged pre-termination conduct, the claimant's termination, and an incident involving a former colleague on 7 or 8 October 2019 as potentially linked for preliminary purposes. Even on that basis, early conciliation should have started by 6 or 7 January 2020 and did not start until 16 January 2020. The tribunal declined to extend time, noting the short delay but also finding the claim appeared very weak, that the link to race was difficult to discern, and that the respondent would face prejudice in responding to older, largely verbal allegations.
The tribunal found no link between those alleged acts and a letter received from Ms Press on 9 December 2019. Because that allegation was not included in the original claim, it would require an amendment. Applying the Selkent balance of hardship, the tribunal refused permission to amend and dismissed the claim in its entirety.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the time limit in s111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the race discrimination claim was presented outside the time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010 and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The race discrimination claim was described as including harassment. It was dismissed for the same limitation and jurisdiction reasons as the race discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- s123 Equality Act 2010
- continuing act
- act extending over a period of time
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- just and equitable
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Selkent test
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.