Case 3206113/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kidan Nags v Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3206113/2022
- Decision date
- 21 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Sugarman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kidan Nags
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented her claim on 29 December 2022. At the preliminary hearing she confirmed that the remaining complaints were race discrimination claims arising from three unsuccessful recruitment exercises: ward clerk on 15 October 2020, float medical secretary on 15 March 2021, and ward clerk on 13 October 2021. She no longer pursued the medical secretary application of 29 June 2021. The tribunal held that the claims were brought outside the three-month limit in s123(1) Equality Act 2010, so the only issue was whether it was just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. It found that the last rejection was in or around October 2021, but ACAS was not contacted until 15 December 2022. The claimant said she had thought about bringing a claim at the time and had sought advice, but she chose not to do so then because she was still getting regular work and did not want to jeopardise the relationship with the respondent. The tribunal noted that she had not used any internal grievance process, did not rely on ill health, and that bereavement around the time she contacted ACAS did not explain the earlier delay.
The tribunal also accepted the respondent's prejudice arguments. By the hearing, a number of likely witnesses had left, some recruitment records were no longer retained on the system, and no contemporaneous investigation had been carried out because no complaint had been raised internally. It further considered that the claimant's prospects on the merits appeared limited, describing the race discrimination case as difficult to understand and largely speculative because she identified no evidence linking the recruitment decisions to race. On that basis, all remaining claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Ward clerk application dated 15 October 2020. The tribunal dismissed this complaint because it was brought outside the three-month time limit in s123(1) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Float medical secretary application dated 15 March 2021. The tribunal dismissed this complaint because it was brought outside the three-month time limit in s123(1) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Ward clerk application dated 13 October 2021. The tribunal dismissed this complaint because it was brought outside the three-month time limit in s123(1) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s123(1) Equality Act 2010
- s140B Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Miller v MoJ and Thompson v MoJ
- 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.