Case 3313187/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313187/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Kuetembo, brought complaints including breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, direct discrimination because of race and sex, and defamation against Humankind Charity. The hearing took place at Watford Employment Tribunal by Cloud Video Platform on 16 April 2024 before Employment Judge French, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms J Linford, Counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract complaint because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. It dismissed the wrongful dismissal complaint on the same basis. The direct discrimination complaints because of race and sex were also dismissed as out of time, and the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
The tribunal further held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint of defamation, so that complaint was also dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Other | The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint of defamation and dismissed that complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.