St Mungo Community Housing Association

Case Summary

Mr Amure brought claims of direct sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal/breach of contract against St Mungo Community Housing Association. All three categories of claims were dismissed because they were presented outside the applicable statutory time limits, it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider them.

All claims were dismissed for want of title and jurisdiction because they were presented outside the applicable statutory time limits. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented in time, and they were not presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Time limit for presenting claims
• •Whether it was reasonably practicable to present claims in time
• •Whether tribunal has jurisdiction to consider claims presented outside statutory time limit
• •Direct sex discrimination under Equality Act 2010
• •Unfair dismissal under Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Wrongful dismissal and breach of contract (notice pay)

- 1 - EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Adeyemi Amure Respondent: St Mungo Community Housing Association Heard at: London East Employment Tribunal (by CVP) On: 07 May 2026 Before: Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation For the Claimant: Mr Sunday Amure, claimant’s uncle and representative (claimant also in attendance) For the Respondent: Mr Gareth Deane, Counsel JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The Judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1.1. The claimant’s complaints of direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 were presented outside the applicable statutory time limit. There were no continuing acts that were both in time and actionable, and it is not just and equitable to extend time. The claimant lacking Title to Present and the Tribunal lacking Jurisdiction to Consider the claimant’s complaints of Discrimination because of the protected characteristic of Sex, the same are dismissed for want of Title and Jurisdiction. 1.2. The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were presented outside the applicable statutory time limit. It was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and, in any event, it was not presented within such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable. The claimant lacking Title to Present and the Tribunal - 2 - lacking Jurisdiction to Consider the claimant’s complaint of Unfair Dismissal, the same is dismissed for want of Title and Jurisdiction. 1.3. The claimant’s complaints of wrongful dismissal / breach of contract (notice pay) were presented outside the applicable statutory time limit. It was reasonably…