Case 6005846/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Darkwah v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005846/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Darkwah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing at London Central by CVP on 29 January 2025, Employment Judge Davidson struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal recorded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because, even if Mr Darkwah was an employee, which the respondent disputed, his service was less than two years. The judgment also recorded that his claim for discrimination did not identify any protected characteristic in respect of which the tribunal had jurisdiction.
No remedy was awarded, and the judgment records no monetary figures.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success; the tribunal recorded that it lacked jurisdiction because, even if the claimant was an employee, his service was less than two years. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim for discrimination, but states that it did not identify any protected characteristic in respect of which the tribunal had jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
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.