Dr E Idehen v Represented by: Mr B Kadirgolam - Solicitor K -A Walker — 2026

Employment Judge Hendry dismissed Dr E Idehen's age and race discrimination claims against K-A Walker for want of jurisdiction, refusing to extend time. Dr Idehen had worked as a lecturer at Robert Gordon's University, where Dr Walker was a colleague on the same grade. Her employment ended through redundancy on 30 June 2025. The accepted date of the last alleged discriminatory act was 6 March 2025. Dr Idehen contacted ACAS on 4 August and submitted her tribunal application on 15 August 2025. The primary time limit had expired before she contacted ACAS.

Dr Idehen said that stress and her mental health had prevented her from bringing proceedings sooner. She described being signed off work for six weeks and returning in late May. The tribunal found very little medical support for the suggestion that she had been unable to investigate her rights and bring proceedings. She had pursued a grievance and mediation, participated in the redundancy process with trade union support, and consulted a solicitor about a proposed settlement agreement.

Under section 123 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal considered whether an extension was just and equitable in the whole circumstances. It noted that there was no presumption in favour of extending time and that Dr Idehen had to persuade it to do so. The tribunal found her apparent ignorance of time limits unreasonable, noting that she had accused Dr Walker of racism during mediation in December 2023. It found clear opportunities for her to ask about her rights and found it difficult to accept her explanation that the solicitor could advise only on the settlement agreement. Such advice would necessarily involve considering possible claims that acceptance would waive.

Applying Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, the tribunal also considered the apparent strength of the claims. Dr Idehen alleged challenges to her competence, speech and language, removal and replacement of teaching materials, and monitoring of her posture and contributions during meetings. The tribunal considered that the incidents appeared to concern a poor working relationship. Her table did not identify which incidents amounted to age discrimination and which to race discrimination, or explain why the tribunal should infer either form of discrimination.

The tribunal referred to Royal Mail Ltd v Efobi on the burden of proof, and to Bahl v Law Society and Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd for the principle that unreasonable or unfair conduct is insufficient by itself to establish discrimination. The judge said that, had time been extended, he would have considered striking out the claims because the pleadings did not explain the connection to race or age. The order made was dismissal for want of jurisdiction because the claims were out of time. No monetary award was recorded.