Case 3313309/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andorful (next friend) For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313309/2020
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley
- Panel members
- Mrs A Buck, Mr Alan Chin-Shaw
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Andorful (next friend) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's direct race discrimination allegations were all out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. Most of the alleged discriminatory acts dated from November 2017 to May 2018, with one January 2020 allegation still out of time, and the tribunal refused to extend time because there was no persuasive explanation for the delay. It also found no evidence that the treatment complained of was connected to race or Ghanaian national origin, and said that race was not raised in the claimant's complaints until 28 September 2020.
The victimisation and protected disclosure claims were also largely time-barred. The tribunal found that many of the alleged protected acts or disclosures were not protected acts at all because they did not allege race discrimination or otherwise satisfy the statutory definitions. It accepted that the 28 September 2020 questionnaire, 13 November 2020 complaint and 20 February 2021 complaint were protected acts/disclosures, but most of the detriment allegations pre-dated those dates. The only live allegation was the dismissal, and the tribunal rejected any causal link between the dismissal and protected acts or protected disclosures.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for capability. It accepted evidence that the claimant had been on long-term sickness absence from 15 December 2020, had not attended a series of sickness review meetings, and had refused to accept the grievance and appeal outcomes. The tribunal also relied on the occupational health evidence that the claimant was not currently fit for duties, with the main barrier to returning being her perceived concerns about the workplace rather than a medical condition.
The tribunal concluded that the grievance process and the later appeal were detailed and reasonable, that the final dismissal decision on 20 May 2022 was open to the respondent, and that the appeal on 16 November 2022 upheld the dismissal. All claims were therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | All direct race discrimination allegations were found to be out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds and also found no evidence that the treatment complained of was tainted by the claimant's race or Ghanaian national origin. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Most victimisation allegations were out of time. The tribunal held that only the dismissal allegation remained in time, but it found no evidence that the dismissal was because of any protected act. It also found that many of the earlier complaints relied on were not protected acts because they did not allege race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Most detriment allegations under section 47B ERA 1996 were out of time. The tribunal held that only the dismissal allegation remained in time, but it found that the dismissal was not because of protected disclosures and that the earlier alleged disclosures did not make out the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability and that the dismissal on 20 May 2022 fell within the band of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted the respondent's process, including the grievance and appeal stages, and held the appeal outcome upheld the dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre T/A Leisure Link
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospital Trust
- Aziz v FDA
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Adedeji v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
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.