Case 6001512/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Ghafoor v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001512/2023
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hastie Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Ghafoor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her case to add a victimisation discrimination claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the race discrimination, sex discrimination and disability discrimination claims on jurisdictional grounds. It found that those claims had been presented outside the applicable time limits.
The Tribunal also found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for any of those discrimination claims. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of time
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.