Case 6002535/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Obenewaah-Achampong v Integrated Care 24 — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002535/2024
- Decision date
- 9 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Beale KC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Obenewaah-Achampong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 25 June 2025, Employment Judge A. Beale KC dismissed the Claimant's unfair dismissal complaint because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present that complaint in time, so the limitation point was not extended.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was held to have been presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint was held to have been presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment dismisses the complaint as out of time but does not identify the protected characteristic said to underlie the harassment claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint was held to have been presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment dismisses the complaint as out of time but does not identify the protected characteristic said to underlie the victimisation complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.