Case 2400928/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Saruchera v Bolton NHS Foundation Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400928/2022
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Saruchera
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Judge Brian Doyle sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 16 January 2023. The claimant applied to amend the claim so that complaints about a vacancy exercise between 20 August 2021 and 24 September 2021 could be included. The tribunal allowed that amendment and held that that part of the amended claim was in time.
The tribunal also decided that the remaining parts of the claim were not in time. It was not just and equitable to extend time for those remaining parts, so they were dismissed. The judgment did not determine the merits of the claim; it only decided timeliness and amendment issues, and the permitted part was listed to proceed to a final hearing on 20 May 2024 to 24 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's application to amend the claim in respect of complaints about a vacancy exercise between 20 August 2021 and 24 September 2021 was permitted. The tribunal held that part of the amended claim was in time and allowed it to proceed to a final hearing listed for 20 May 2024 to 24 May 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The remaining parts of the claim were found not to be in time, and the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those parts. Those remaining parts were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.