Case 6000184/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ntiege v Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000184/2022
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ntiege
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing on 10 May 2023 before Employment Judge JM Wade. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his Employment Rights Act complaints by 22 October 2022, one month from the ACAS certificate, but the claim was not presented until 30 December 2022. Those complaints were therefore dismissed for limitation reasons.
The tribunal also held that it would not be just and equitable to allow a further two months and one week, from 22 October 2022 to 30 December 2022, for the Equality Act complaints to proceed. Those complaints were also dismissed for limitation reasons.
The tribunal refused permission to amend the claim form to add further complaints identified later. The judgment states that the proceedings were then at an end and that the previously made deposit orders were of no effect.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as an 'unfair constructive dismissal' complaint and dismisses it for limitation reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed for limitation reasons in the public preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment groups this with 'other payment complaints' and dismisses it for limitation reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'Equality Act complaints'; the protected characteristic is inferred from the published case listing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'Equality Act complaints'; the protected characteristic is inferred from the published case listing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'Equality Act complaints'; the protected characteristic is inferred from the published case listing. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.