Case 3205189/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bwanika v AYP Healthcare Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205189/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bwanika
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 14 July 2023 at East London by CVP, Employment Judge Professor A C Neal considered the Claimant’s claims against AYP Healthcare Limited. The judgment records allegations of unlawful discrimination and/or harassment by reference to race and by reference to age, each described as comprising 7 allegations up to 19 January 2022.
The tribunal held that the race-based claims were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The same reasoning was applied to the age-based claims, which were also dismissed for being out of time. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the underlying merits of those allegations.
The judgment also states that the Claimant’s post-employment victimisation claim was presented in time. No further outcome or remedy for that claim appears in the supplied text, so the record is limited to the timeliness finding only.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records allegations of unlawful discrimination and/or harassment by reference to race, with 7 allegations up to 19 January 2022. Those claims were found to have been presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so they were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment records allegations of unlawful discrimination and/or harassment by reference to age, with 7 allegations up to 19 January 2022. Those claims were found to have been presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so they were dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the post-employment victimisation claim was presented in time. No merits outcome for that claim appears in the supplied text. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of 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.