1) Partners Group (UK) Ltd 2) Partners Group (USA) Inc
Decision Overview
Claim Types
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
sal (asserting that the reason, or principal reason, for her dismissal was making protected disclosures), ordinary unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment.
The claimant brought complaints of sex, race and perceived disability discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal (asserting that the reason, or principal reason, for her dismissal was making protected disclosures), ordinary unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment.
e July 2018 meeting issue; even if the July 2018 meeting issue had remained an individual allegation of direct sex and race discrimination, there is no realistic prospect that it would have been determined in the claimant’s favour.
A list of issues was agreed on 13 September 2019, which included an allegation of direct race and sex discrimination that had originally been raised in the claim form (“the July 2018 meeting issue”): (z) By the Claimant being told disingenuously in a meeting with Christian Truempler and Gabriela Reimer in the first...
ation, automatic unfair dismissal (asserting that the reason, or principal reason, for her dismissal was making protected disclosures), ordinary unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment.
Decision Text
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mulumba v Partners Group © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 53 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 53 Case No: EA-2022-001462-RS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 21 April 2026 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : Ms M Mulumba Appellant - and - (1) Partners Group (UK) Ltd (2) Partners Group (USA) Inc Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms M Mulumba the Appellant in person Freddie Onslow (instructed by Macfarlanes LLP) for the Respondents Hearing date: 9 April 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mulumba v Partners Group © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 53 SUMMARY Practice and Procedure The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in case management decisions concerning the list of issues and exclusion of material from a reply witness statement. Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mulumba v Partners Group © EAT 2026 Page 3 [2026] EAT 53 HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER: The issues 1. The issues in this appeal are whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in case management decisions, made during a final hearing, by removing an issue that the claimant contended should be in the list of issues; and excluding parts of the claimant’s reply witness statement. The decision appealed 2. The two case management decisions of Employment Judge Nicolle, sitting with members, were set out in a set of written reasons sent to the parties on 24 January 2022. The claimant’s employment with the respondent 3. Partners Group provides investment services. The two respondents are companies in the Partners Group. 4. The claimant was offered employment as an Asso...
Case Facts
- Claimant
- Ms M Mulumba
- Case Number
- [2026] EAT 53
- Appeal result
- Appeal dismissed · Remitted
- Tribunal
- Employment Appeal Tribunal
- Level
- Appeal
- Decision Date
- 21 April 2026
- Published
- 21 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales