Case 2412161/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Mustafa v East Lancashire Hospitals Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412161/2023
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Mustafa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Mustafa's claims against East Lancashire Hospitals Trust were heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal by CVP on 31 July 2024 before Employment Judge M Butler. The tribunal found that all allegations were brought outside the relevant statutory time limits.
The tribunal further found that it was reasonably practicable to bring the claims within the applicable time limits. On that basis, it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed all claims in the case. The written record states that the reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was brought outside the relevant statutory time limits and that it was reasonably practicable to bring it within time; the tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was brought outside the relevant statutory time limits and that it was reasonably practicable to bring it within time; the tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was brought outside the relevant statutory time limits and that it was reasonably practicable to bring it within time; the tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was brought outside the relevant statutory time limits and that it was reasonably practicable to bring it within time; the tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.