Case 6000948/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Miss E Moncur, Solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000948/2023
- Decision date
- 12 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Taiwo Afolabi worked as a healthcare assistant for Barchester Healthcare Limited from 10 June 2019 until 23 December 2020. He was dismissed by letter dated 21 December 2020 with effect from 23 December 2020 and paid four weeks' pay in lieu of notice. After dismissal he complained of wrongful dismissal, and later solicitors' correspondence alleged race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and detriment for protected public interest disclosures. The tribunal found that he knew about the three-month time limit, had started ACAS early conciliation, and did not present tribunal proceedings until 30 May 2023.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal treated the matter as an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service. The relevant time limit, taking account of early conciliation under section 207B ERA 1996, expired in May 2021. Applying the 'not reasonably practicable' test in section 111(2) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited, the judge found no physical impediment, no misrepresentation by the respondent, and no substantial fault by advisers. The claimant had received specialist employment law advice, knew the time limits, had internet access, and any belief that he could only issue proceedings through paid solicitors was not reasonable.
For the discrimination claims, the tribunal assumed that the proceedings were intended to include race discrimination and applied the just and equitable discretion under section 123(1)(b) EqA 2010, taking account of the ACAS extension in section 140B EqA 2010. The judge found no compelling reason for the more than two-year delay after the extended limitation dates of 28 and 29 May 2021, and no good reason to wait further once the early conciliation process had ended. All claims were therefore dismissed as presented out of time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Treated as an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 based on protected disclosures; dismissed as out of time under section 111(2) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claim that the tribunal assumed was intended to be pursued; dismissed as out of time under section 123(1)(b) EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment allegation; dismissed as out of time under the Equality Act limitation provisions. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Race-related victimisation allegation; dismissed as out of time under the Equality Act limitation provisions. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- section 111(2) ERA 1996
- section 123(1)(b) EqA 2010
- section 207B ERA 1996
- section 140B EqA 2010
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- Luton Borough Council v Haque
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.