Case 3200744/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Oswald Rose v Newham College of Further Education Heard by: East London Hearing Centre (by CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200744/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Oswald Rose
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Oswald Rose brought complaints of race discrimination against Newham College of Further Education. The hearing was before Employment Judge S Povey at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 24 January 2024.
The tribunal found that the complaints of race discrimination were not presented within three months of the acts complained of. It also found they were not presented within any further period that was just and equitable. By reason of section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that it could not consider the complaints, concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the race discrimination complaints were out of time under the three-month limit and also not within any period that was just and equitable, so it could not consider them and struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.