Case 3311149/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Joseph v Ministry of Defence — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311149/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Joseph
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant joined the Armed Forces on 3 December 2023 and was discharged on 20 March 2024. She had made service complaints on 14 March 2024 and 25 March 2024, then started ACAS early conciliation on 18 September 2024 and presented her ET1 on 16 October 2024. The tribunal held that the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims could not proceed because, under ss191-192 ERA 1996, members of the Armed Forces cannot bring unfair dismissal or whistleblowing claims in the Employment Tribunal, so those claims were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal held that it did have jurisdiction over Equality Act complaints in principle because the claimant had live service complaints that had not been withdrawn, bringing her within s121 EqA 2010. However, the victimisation claim in the ET1 was still out of time: taking 20 March 2024 as the last possible act, the primary limit expired on 19 September 2024, and the tribunal held that ACAS early conciliation did not extend time for Armed Forces EqA claims because of s140B. It found no good explanation for the delay, held that the claimant's ignorance of the time limits was not reasonable, and concluded that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent, so time was not extended.
The tribunal also found that the victimisation allegation as pleaded on the ET1, based on reporting fraternising and a corporal's knowledge of it, was unlikely to amount to a protected act under s27(2) EqA 2010. At the hearing the claimant also described broader race discrimination and additional victimisation allegations, including Sgt Martin's comment that she did not "belong here" and alleged harsher treatment than white colleagues. The tribunal treated the race point as a proposed amendment and refused it under the Selkent line of authority, relying on the new factual basis, the lateness of the application, the out-of-time position, and the balance of hardship. It also rejected the proposed amendment to add further victimisation allegations for similar reasons. No live claims remained before the tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claims brought by members of the Armed Forces, relying on ss191-192 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out for the same jurisdictional reason: the tribunal held that members of the Armed Forces cannot bring ERA 1996 whistleblowing claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. The tribunal also said the alleged complaint about reporting fraternising was unlikely to amount to a protected act under s27(2) EqA 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
22 references- s191 ERA 1996
- s192 ERA 1996
- s121 EqA 2010
- s123(2)(b) EqA 2010
- s140B EqA 2010
- s27 EqA 2010
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- MacFarlane v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Foxtons Ltd v Ruwiel
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Miller and ors v Ministry of Justice
- Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Martin v Microgen Wealth Management Systems Ltd
- Ahuja v Inghams
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.