Case 4105343/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Francis Binamungu v Greater Glasgow Health Board and 1 other — 2018
- Case reference
- 4105343/2017
- Decision date
- 4 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Francis Binamungu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Preliminary Hearing concerning amendment and jurisdictional time limits for direct race discrimination allegations against the Second Respondent. The allegations arose from events on 29 May 2017 after the Claimant, a nurse working as an agency worker, was excluded from nursing in Ward 4 at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. The tribunal recorded contextual background but did not make findings on the substantive discrimination allegations.
The tribunal held that one allegation, concerning executing or complying with the instruction to exclude the Claimant from Ward 4, was already before the tribunal and required no amendment. It allowed amendments for allegations concerning failure to provide a reason for the exclusion and failure to investigate the reasons before executing the instruction. Applying Selkent principles, it found that the balance of prejudice favoured allowing the amendments, noting that a fair hearing remained possible and the final hearing had not yet been listed.
The tribunal accepted that the claims against the Second Respondent were out of time: the original allegation was 56 days late, while the amended allegations were treated as raised around seven months late. It accepted that the delay resulted from errors by the Claimant's trade union and/or solicitors rather than personal responsibility on the Claimant's part, and found no adverse effect on the cogency of evidence. It concluded that all claims were presented within a just and equitable further period and could proceed to a final hearing on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary Hearing only. The tribunal allowed any necessary amendments to the direct race discrimination allegations against the Second Respondent and held that the out-of-time complaints were presented within a just and equitable further period. The merits were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Accurist Watches Ltd v Wadher
- DPP v Marshall
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- section 33 Limitation Act 1980
- Chohan v Derby Law Centre
- Virdi v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Wright v Wolverhampton City Council
- De Souza v Manpower UK Ltd
- rule 29 of the 2013 Rules
- Chapman v Simon
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Sefton v Hincks
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.