Case 4111168/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Mkwebu v Ms F Mundy — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111168/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Mkwebu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mkwebu presented this claim on 30 August 2021 alleging direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 against Ms F Mundy and The ABC Trust. The Tribunal held that the part of the claim predating 9 March 2020 was outside the three-month time limit and that it was not persuaded those earlier allegations formed a continuing act. It also refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, noting the age of the earlier allegations and that the claimant had already brought ten other claims concerning the same employment period.
The Tribunal refused to strike out the claim against the first respondent as an abuse of process or as vexatious under Rule 37, and it was not persuaded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It referred to Attorney General v Barker and Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union, and said that bringing separate proceedings after refusal of an earlier amendment was not, by itself, an abuse of process.
On jurisdiction against the second respondent, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the early conciliation certificate prevented the claim from proceeding, treating the certificate as capable of covering the present matter and referring to Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills. It then dealt with amendment, granting leave only for Complaint 10, a victimisation allegation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 about denial of access to documents from 9 March 2020 onwards. The proposed amendment to add a section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 whistleblowing claim was refused under the Selkent guidance. Questions about privilege and admissibility of documents were left for case management before any final hearing. No monetary award was made at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Original Equality Act claim. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the part of the claim before 9 March 2020 because those allegations were out of time and were not treated as a continuing act. It refused a just and equitable extension. No merits determination was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Original Equality Act claim. The Tribunal applied the same time-limit ruling: allegations before 9 March 2020 were outside its jurisdiction, while the post-9 March 2020 allegations were left to be tested in evidence. No merits determination was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal granted leave to amend only for Complaint 10, a victimisation allegation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 concerning denial of access to documents from 9 March 2020 onwards. It held the earlier allegations before 9 March 2020 were out of time. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The proposed amendment to add a protected-disclosure detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused. The Tribunal was not persuaded that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier or that amendment would be in the interests of justice. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Attorney General v Barker
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills
- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Ladd v Marshall
- s.18A and s.18B Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.