12-day employee: race discrimination claim dismissed as time-barred and out of jurisdiction
A senior risk manager who worked for Global Prime Partners Ltd for just 12 days had her unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims thrown out after the tribunal ruled she was not an employee and her discrimination claim was over three years late.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant signed a contract of employment with Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd (TWHL), not the respondent.
- The claimant worked for the respondent via an agency from August 2022 until November 2022.
- The claimant was registered as the respondent's CASS CF10a on the FCA website from 14 to 25 November 2022.
- The claimant's race discrimination claim related to a decision in July 2019 not to offer her a permanent position.
- The claimant presented her race discrimination claim on 12 January 2023, over three years after the alleged act.
Timeline
-
Alleged discriminatory decision
The claimant alleges that in July 2019, Gretchen Roberts did not offer her the permanent position of CASS Oversight Officer, offering it instead to a white comparator, Abigail Yardley.
-
Started working as contractor
The claimant began working for the respondent via an agency (TwentyAi) as a CASS and Risk Consultant.
-
Signed employment contract with TWHL
The claimant signed a contract of employment with Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd, not the respondent.
-
First day of employment with TWHL
The claimant started her employment with TWHL, working as CASS CF10a for the respondent. She raised a grievance on the same day.
-
Dismissal
The claimant's employment was terminated by TWHL.
-
Presented first claim
The claimant presented claim 2210731/2022, including claims for automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, direct race discrimination, and victimisation.
-
Presented second claim
The claimant presented claim 2200267/2023, including a claim for direct race discrimination relating to the July 2019 decision.
-
Preliminary hearing (case management)
Employment Judge A.M.S Green held a preliminary hearing, removing Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd as a respondent and dismissing the ordinary unfair dismissal claim on withdrawal.
-
Preliminary hearing (jurisdiction and strike out)
Employment Judge Woodhead held a preliminary hearing to determine the employer point and the time limit issue for the race discrimination claim.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Woodhead issued a judgment dismissing all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee or worker of Global Prime Partners Ltd, and whether her race discrimination claim was brought within the three-month time limit (or should be extended on just and equitable grounds).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- The claimant was not an employee or worker of Global Prime Partners Ltd. She had signed a contract with a different company, Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd, and worked for Global Prime Partners only as a contractor via an agency.
- The race discrimination claim related to a decision in July 2019 not to offer her a permanent role. She presented the claim in January 2023 – over three years late. The tribunal refused to extend time, finding no good reason for the delay and that the respondent would be prejudiced.
- The whistleblowing and victimisation claims were also struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success, because the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check who your actual employer is: if you sign a contract with one company but work for another, you may not have employment rights against the company you work for day-to-day.
- Time limits for race discrimination claims are strict – you usually have three months from the act you complain about. Delays of years are almost impossible to overcome.
- Short service (under two years) means you cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal, but you may still have other claims like discrimination or whistleblowing – provided you are an employee or worker.
- If you are working through an agency, your employment status may be limited to 'worker' rather than 'employee', affecting your rights to claim unfair dismissal.
A short-lived role with complex employment arrangements
The claimant, a senior risk manager, worked for Global Prime Partners Ltd for just 12 days in November 2022. But her employment relationship was far from straightforward. She had originally been brought in as a contractor through an agency, and later signed an employment contract with Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd – a different company – not with Global Prime Partners. This distinction proved fatal to her claims.
When her employment ended abruptly, she brought a series of claims including unfair dismissal, race discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and victimisation. However, the tribunal had to first decide who her employer was and whether she had the legal status to bring those claims.
Why the claims failed
The tribunal found that the claimant was never an employee or worker of Global Prime Partners Ltd. Her contract was with Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd, and her work for Global Prime Partners was done as a contractor through an agency. Without an employment relationship with the respondent, her claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and victimisation had no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out.
Her race discrimination claim faced a different problem. She alleged that in July 2019 – over three years before she started working for Global Prime Partners – she was not offered a permanent role because of her race. She only presented that claim in January 2023. The tribunal refused to extend the time limit, noting the very long delay and the lack of a good reason for it. The respondent would have been unfairly prejudiced by having to defend a claim about events so long ago.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment status is a gateway issue. Even if you work for a company day-to-day, your legal employer may be a different entity – and that can determine which claims you can bring. It also shows that discrimination claims must be brought promptly; waiting years, even if you later start working for the same organisation, will almost certainly be too late.
For anyone considering a claim, the first step should always be to check who your employer is under your contract and whether you have the required service or status. If you are unsure, early legal advice can save time and money.
Similar cases
Claim struck out: no employment relationship with Financial Ombudsman Service
A former complainant who claimed to be an employee of the Financial Ombudsman Service had all his claims struck out after failing to attend a preliminary hearing and providing no evidence of an employment relationship.
Claims struck out after claimant and representative fail to attend hearing
A former employee's race and sex discrimination claims were struck out after she and her representative failed to attend a preliminary hearing without explanation. A later bid to reinstate the case was refused.
Race discrimination claim partly struck out: third-party motive not enough
A tribunal struck out one part of a former employee's race discrimination claim because the alleged discriminatory act was carried out by a third party, but allowed other allegations to proceed.
Deputy Home Manager wins employment status fight after dismissal
A deputy home manager has won a preliminary ruling that she was employed by Teen Support Services Ltd, not a related company, allowing her whistleblowing and race discrimination claims to proceed.