Case 6007366/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Miss A Mondal v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust — 2025

Case reference: 6007366/2024
Decision date: 24 July 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
Venue: London South

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss A Mondal

Respondent

Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a reserved judgment on preliminary issues. The claimant's applications to amend the claims were refused. The tribunal considered the timing, manner and nature of the proposed amendments, and concluded that the balance of injustice and hardship weighed very significantly against permitting seven new matters to be added.

For the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal found that only two of the 60 discrimination and victimisation complaints in Claim 1 were presented within the primary time limit. It was not just and equitable to extend time for the other 58 complaints as standalone complaints. The tribunal also struck out the argument that the out-of-time complaints formed conduct extending over a period with the in-time complaints, except for the November 2023 redundancy-selection allegations of direct race discrimination and victimisation, which may still be argued as linked to the surviving in-time complaints.

The unfair dismissal complaint in Claim 2 was presented seven weeks and two days late. The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present that complaint in time, including in light of her knowledge of time limits by July 2024 and her presentation of Claim 1 within the relevant period. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint.

The surviving standalone complaints for final hearing are the direct race discrimination complaint concerning the May 2024 8A Governance Manager role and the June 2024 victimisation complaint concerning redundancy. The claimant may also seek to establish that the November 2023 redundancy-selection allegations of direct race discrimination and victimisation formed conduct extending over a period with those in-time complaints.

Claims and outcomes

9 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Mixed preliminary outcome. Two direct race complaints were withdrawn and dismissed; most out-of-time race discrimination complaints were held outside jurisdiction as standalone complaints and the continuing-act argument was struck out for all except the redundancy-selection allegation. The direct race complaint about the May 2024 8A Governance Manager application remains to be determined, and the claimant may argue that the November 2023 redundancy-selection allegation formed conduct extending over a period with it.	Other	Race	—
Sex discrimination	The direct sex discrimination complaint was among the out-of-time Equality Act complaints for which time was not extended, and the continuing-act argument was struck out.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	The harassment related to race complaints were out of time; the tribunal did not extend time and struck out the argument that they formed conduct extending over a period with the in-time complaints.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The harassment related to sex and sexual harassment complaints were out of time; the tribunal did not extend time and struck out the argument that they formed conduct extending over a period with the in-time complaints.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Victimisation	Mixed preliminary outcome. Reliance on a September 2012 protected act was withdrawn and dismissed. The tribunal held that out-of-time victimisation complaints were outside jurisdiction as standalone complaints, but the June 2024 redundancy victimisation complaint remains to be determined and the claimant may argue that the November 2023 redundancy-selection victimisation allegation formed conduct extending over a period with it. The tribunal declined to strike out the contention that the April 2013 communication was a protected act.

Legal tests applied

30 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.