Case 6009627/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A St. Auburn 1st v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust 2nd Respondent: Unison Trade Union — 2024
- Case reference
- 6009627/2024
- Decision date
- 21 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A St. Auburn 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether parts of the Equality Act 2010 race discrimination claim were in time. The claimant alleged a series of acts involving the Trust and the Union, and the appendix identified race as the protected characteristic relied on.
The Tribunal held that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that alleged discriminatory acts at paragraphs 4(a) to 4(m) were part of conduct extending over a period ending after 11 May 2024, or that it would be just and equitable to extend time for those complaints. Those discrimination complaints were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a), and the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaints of discrimination relating to alleged acts at appendix paragraphs 4(a) to 4(m) were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Trade union | The judgment states that the claim against the Second Respondent, Unison Trade Union, is dismissed. It does not set out a separate non-discrimination cause of action against the Second Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- 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.