Case 3200249/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Ekwebelem v London Borough of Waltham Forest — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200249/2021
- Decision date
- 6 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Ekwebelem
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private preliminary hearing by telephone on 6 January 2022, the tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages claims had each been presented outside the applicable primary time limit. For each of those claims, it found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the primary time limit. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider those claims and dismissed them.
The tribunal also found that the disability discrimination claims had been presented outside the primary time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010. Having considered the circumstances, it found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider those claims and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the primary time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the primary time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the primary time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the claims were presented outside the primary time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7 of The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.