Case 1300105/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Abinhav Sharma v Jaguar Land Rover Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024

Case reference: 1300105/2023
Decision date: 1 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Camp Appearances

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Abinhav Sharma

Respondent

Jaguar Land Rover Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At this preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Camp in Birmingham on 27 June 2024, the Tribunal dismissed only the direct race discrimination complaints numbered 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in the agreed list of issues. Those complaints related to matters said to have happened in September 2017 and September 2019, and the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with them because they were out of time.

The Tribunal also refused permission for the Claimant to amend his claim to add a direct race discrimination complaint about being designated C-grade rather than D-grade and being paid as such from 2019. No decision on time limits was made in relation to any other complaint, and any further time limits issues were left to be dealt with at the final hearing.

The victimisation complaint numbered 7.3.2, concerning an alleged change to the Claimant's job title on 13 September 2022, was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The Tribunal did not strike out complaints 7.3.4 and 7.3.5, and no deposit order was made in relation to them.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The Tribunal dismissed only complaints 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in the agreed list of issues, which were direct race discrimination allegations said to relate to events in September 2017 and September 2019. The dismissal was on jurisdictional grounds because the complaints were out of time.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	Complaint 7.3.2 in the agreed list of issues, concerning an alleged change to the Claimant's job title on 13 September 2022, was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.