Case 3302106/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Zvaita v Thames Water Utilities Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302106/2023
- Decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Varnam Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Zvaita
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's effective date of termination was 23 September 2022. On that basis, the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims were brought outside the primary statutory time limits, because ACAS early conciliation began on 28 December 2022 and the ET1 was presented on 24 February 2023.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the primary time limit, so that claim was dismissed as outside jurisdiction. For race discrimination, the tribunal was just persuaded to extend time for the allegation that the alleged constructive dismissal was an act of race discrimination, and that claim was allowed to proceed.
The tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds for standalone pre-dismissal discrimination complaints. It did not dismiss or strike out those matters, because the final tribunal was left to decide whether they formed part of a course of conduct ending with the alleged dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction because it was brought outside the primary time limit and the claimant had not proved that it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Time was extended for the race discrimination claim insofar as it related to the alleged constructive dismissal, so that claim was permitted to proceed to final hearing. Standalone pre-dismissal race discrimination complaints were not given a just and equitable extension, but were not dismissed or struck out because the final tribunal was left to decide whether they formed part of a course of conduct culminating in the alleged dismissal. The prompt contains truncated judgment text. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- section 123(3)(a) of the Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.