Case 6012410/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Ganvir-Roche v Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012410/2024
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Ganvir-Roche
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment following a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Millns sitting alone at Manchester (by CVP) on 22 September 2025, concerning whether various discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints brought by Mrs J Ganvir-Roche against Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust should be struck out on time-limit grounds or made subject to a deposit order. The claimant presented her claim on 21 September 2024, and it was common ground that acts before 21 April 2024 were prima facie out of time unless they formed part of a continuing act or a just and equitable extension was granted.
The Tribunal dismissed upon withdrawal the victimisation allegation at item 7.2.11. It struck out three reasonable adjustments allegations (workload at 3.2.2, car park physical feature at 3.4 and orthopaedic chair at 3.5) on the basis that the claimant had no reasonable prospects of establishing they were part of a course of conduct extending after 21 April 2024 or that it would be just and equitable to extend time. The remaining harassment (race/religion and disability), direct race discrimination and victimisation allegations concerning the claimant's line manager KB were not struck out: taking the claimant's case at its highest, the Tribunal considered it arguable that the in-time "birthday card" allegation (May 2024) could succeed as victimisation and could form part of a continuing act with earlier matters, and that a just and equitable extension was arguable given overlap with the claimant's internal grievance.
The direct race discrimination claim relating to the birthday card (paragraph 6.2.18) was made subject to a deposit order on the basis that it had little reasonable prospects of success as a race claim, because the claimant's own case was that the card was sent in response to her grievance. Taking the claimant's limited means (surplus income of around GBP 300 per month) into account, the deposit was set at GBP 100. No deposit order was made in respect of the same factual allegation pleaded as victimisation (paragraph 7.2.10).
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Allegation of victimisation at item 7.2.11 of the list of issues was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments allegations at paragraphs 3.2.2 (workload), 3.4 (car park physical feature) and 3.5 (orthopaedic chair) of the list of issues were struck out on the basis that the claimant has no reasonable prospects of establishing a continuing act after 21 April 2024 or that a just and equitable extension of time would be granted. Preliminary hearing only; substantive merits not determined. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegation at paragraph 6.2.18 (birthday card) was made subject to a deposit order of GBP 100 (reduced from a maximum of GBP 1,000 in light of the claimant's limited means) on the grounds that it has little reasonable prospects of success. Other direct race discrimination allegations (paragraphs 6.2.1-6.2.17), harassment related to race and/or religion or belief (paragraph 4), harassment related to disability (paragraph 5) and the victimisation allegations at 7.2.2 and 7.2.4 (in respect of KB) were not struck out; they were allowed to proceed to the final hearing because the Tribunal concluded it was arguable they formed part of a continuing act and/or that a just and equitable extension of time may be granted. Preliminary hearing only. | Other | Race | £100 |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- E v X and others UKEAT 0079-20-RN
- Sougrin
- Robinson
- Sridhar
- Caterham
- Rule 40(5)(a)
- Rule 74
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.