Case 3200885/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A K Taneja v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200885/2023
- Decision date
- 9 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Townley Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A K Taneja
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claims for race discrimination, age discrimination and victimisation. The judgment records that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear those claims.
The reason given was that the claims were presented outside the statutory time limits. The Tribunal did not deem it just and equitable to extend time under s123(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment states that this brought the proceedings to an end.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the claim was presented outside statutory time limits and the Tribunal did not deem it just and equitable to extend time under s123(b) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the claim was presented outside statutory time limits and the Tribunal did not deem it just and equitable to extend time under s123(b) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the claim was presented outside statutory time limits and the Tribunal did not deem it just and equitable to extend time under s123(b) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s123(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.