Case 6004941/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Kaur v Esteem Multi-Academy Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004941/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham Tribunal Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Kaur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 30 September 2025, Employment Judge Shore dealt with claims by Ms J Kaur against Esteem Multi-Academy Trust in case numbers 6004941/2024 and 6006982/2025. The claimant had worked as a Teaching Assistant from 13 December 2021 to 13 September 2024 and was dismissed for forging five MED3 certificates. She had originally presented race and disability discrimination claims, later withdrew the disability discrimination claims, and then sought to pursue unfair dismissal and further discrimination allegations by amendment and by a fresh ET1.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim in 6006982/2025 under s.111(2) ERA 1996 because it was presented outside the three-month time limit and the claimant did not prove that it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time. It also refused to permit unfair dismissal to be added by amendment to 6004941/2024, finding that the claimant had not raised that claim at the earlier hearings, had delayed until 19 February 2025, and had not shown a basis for overriding the time limit. In considering delay, the tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation that ignorance of the tribunal process or lack of representation made the delay reasonable.
The tribunal refused the application to add further race discrimination claims. It found those allegations were new, speculative, and not really discrimination complaints, and that allowing them would require investigation of matters said to span 2022 to 2024 and would prejudice the respondent. It then struck out the remaining claims, including the race discrimination claim already in the proceedings and the breach of contract and unauthorised deduction claims referred to in the limitation analysis, on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success and were out of time with no realistic basis for a just and equitable extension. It recorded that, save for an allegation on 24 April 2024, the EqA allegations were out of time. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under s.111(2) ERA 1996 as out of time; the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present in time. The tribunal also refused to allow unfair dismissal to be added by amendment to 6004941/2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal refused the application to add further race discrimination allegations and struck out the remaining race discrimination claims as out of time or with no realistic basis for a just and equitable extension. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant at the 16 May 2025 preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Included in the tribunal's limitation analysis and struck out with the remaining claims as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Referred to in the tribunal's limitation analysis and struck out with the remaining claims as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
29 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.123 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Palmer & Another v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Northamptonshire County Council v Entwistle
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Stratford on Avon DC v Hughes
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services
- Robertson v Bexley Community Care
- Chohan v Derby Law Centre
- Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Ltd v Obi
- Miller v MoJ
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- Cocking v Sandhurst
- British Newspaper Printing Corporation (North) Ltd v Kelly
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore
- Housing Corporation v Bryant
- Harvey v Port of Tilbury (London) Ltd
- Ali v Office of National Statistics
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster plc
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Baker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd
- Evershed v New Star Asset Management
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Abel Estate Agent Ltd and ors v Reynolds 2025 EAT 6
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.