Case 2400893/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Singh v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400893/2025
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Holmes (sitting alone) at Manchester. The claimant, who appeared in person, had presented an ET1 on 11 March 2025 bringing a wide range of claims against Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, including unfair dismissal, discrimination on multiple protected characteristics (age, race, sex, pregnancy or maternity, marriage or civil partnership, disability, religion or belief), whistleblowing, and claims for notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments. The respondent applied for the claims to be struck out or for a deposit order, on the basis that the claimant's employment had ended on 14 April 2016 and the claims were therefore very substantially out of time.
The Tribunal found that the claims had been brought over eight years after the claimant's dismissal, more than thirty-two times the statutory three-month time limit. The claimant had been able to bring two earlier Tribunal claims in 2014 and 2015 and to appear at the EAT in December 2016, and had provided no real explanation for not bringing the present claims sooner, beyond stating that she had recently been advised to do so by the DWP. The Tribunal took her health and disabilities into account but concluded that the length of delay was fatal and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The Employment Judge also found that, aside from the unfair dismissal claim, the matters complained of either had been, or could and should have been, included in the claimant's previous Tribunal proceedings in 2014 and 2015, and so were also liable to be struck out under the principle in Henderson v Henderson. For these reasons all of the claimant's claims were held to have no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
12 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success; brought well outside the statutory time limit (dismissal in April 2016, claim presented March 2025). | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out for no reasonable prospects of success; time-barred and likely barred under Henderson v Henderson. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out for no reasonable prospects of success; time-barred and likely barred under Henderson v Henderson. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out for no reasonable prospects of success; time-barred and likely barred under Henderson v Henderson. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Struck out for no reasonable prospects of success; time-barred and likely barred under Henderson v Henderson. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | Struck out for no reasonable prospects of success; time-barred and likely barred under Henderson v Henderson. | Struck out | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010 (just and equitable extension of time)
- s.33 Limitation Act 1980
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation [2021] ICR D5
- Henderson v Henderson
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.