Case 3311861/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Masimba Mugadzaweta v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311861/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Masimba Mugadzaweta
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for unfair dismissal, holiday pay and notice pay. It found that those claims had not been presented within the applicable three month time limits and was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to bring them within time.
The Tribunal struck out the race discrimination claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable three month time limit and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to bring it within that time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable three month time limit and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to bring it within that time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a notice pay claim. It was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable three month time limit and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to bring it within that time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.