Case 2502206/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E F Baduka v Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502206/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC in person
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E F Baduka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 6 and 22 November 2024, the claimant withdrew her direct race discrimination claims and her harassment claims related to race. The only remaining complaint was harassment related to religion or belief. The tribunal approached the matter as a preliminary issue under section 123 Equality Act 2010, focusing on whether the claim had been presented in time or whether it should be allowed to proceed on a just and equitable basis.
The tribunal found that the last alleged act of harassment related to religion or belief occurred at the latest on 28 January 2023, so the primary limitation period expired on 27 April 2023. It accepted that ACAS notifications and the second claim were later than that date. The tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that she had not instructed her first solicitors to notify ACAS or present the first claim, instead finding that she had instructed them to do so and that she was aware of the existence of the first claim and of tribunal time limits by at least 7 July 2023.
In deciding whether to extend time on a just and equitable basis, the tribunal took into account that the claimant had access to legal advice, that the delay in presenting the second claim was attributable to her rather than to her advisers, and that she had given evidence the tribunal considered knowingly misleading about the first claim. It also found that, despite attempts to identify a link between the alleged conduct and religion or belief, the claimant had not provided any prima facie explanation on causation. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the harassment claim related to religion or belief and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant; the judgment also records that the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | Withdrawn by the claimant; the judgment also records that the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | Held to be out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010, with no just and equitable extension; the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- Rule 53(1)(b) preliminary issue
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.