Case 2407918/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R. Miah v Alder Hey Childrens Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407918/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R. Miah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Leach heard the case in Manchester on 30 October 2023 and dismissed the unfair (constructive) dismissal complaint as out of time. The judgment recorded that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within the applicable time limit, so the tribunal did not extend time and dismissed the claim.
The tribunal also dismissed the Equality Act complaints as out of time. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit for those complaints. The written record does not set out any merits findings on either the dismissal issue or the discrimination allegations, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was described as unfair (constructive) dismissal. It was dismissed because the tribunal found it was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to complaints of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and dismisses them as out of time, finding it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The extracted judgment text does not specify the protected characteristic, so this classification follows the case listing context. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.