Case 2600754/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Dr Hamza Mazhar (2) Dr Yusuf Hussain v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600754/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Legard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Dr Hamza Mazhar (2) Dr Yusuf Hussain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 24 November 2022 before Employment Judge Legard sitting alone, Dr Hamza Mazhar and Dr Yusuf Hussain brought complaints against Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust alleging direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination and harassment arising from events beginning on 2 July 2021. The tribunal said it was not deciding the merits at that stage and restricted its findings to the limitation issue.
The tribunal found that the primary three-month time limit under s.123 EqA 2010 expired at midnight on 5 October 2021, so the claim form received on 13 March 2022 was out of time by about five months. ACAS early conciliation ran from 5 January 2022 to 15 February 2022, but that did not bring the claims within the primary time limit. The claimants had raised an informal grievance in July 2021, then a formal grievance, and Mrs Lacey's investigation report was dated 15 December 2021 and issued on 23 December 2021.
Applying the just and equitable test, the tribunal held that time should be extended. It accepted that the claimants had deliberately awaited the outcome of the internal grievance process because the Trust's policies encouraged that route, that the Trust was responsible for the delay in completing the investigation, and that some matters relied on in the claim only emerged from the investigation report, including the email to divisional leaders and Infection Control, the description 'tall, dark and coloured', and the alleged implication that the claimants were a threat to young women. The tribunal found no material prejudice to the respondent beyond the ordinary burden of defending the case and allowed the race discrimination, sex discrimination and harassment complaints to proceed to a full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal extended time under s.123 EqA 2010 and permitted the claim to proceed to a full hearing. No substantive liability finding was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal extended time under s.123 EqA 2010 and permitted the claim to proceed to a full hearing. No substantive liability finding was made. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal extended time for the harassment complaint to proceed. No substantive liability finding was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
- Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth BC
- Wells Cathedral School Ltd v Souter
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
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.