Case 1301055/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Ms. Umar, Soilicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301055/2021
- Decision date
- 1 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 1 April 2022, Employment Judge Wedderspoon dealt with three claims brought by Mr M Uppal against Mitie Limited. The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. It also held that the claim for unlawful deductions of unauthorised wages was out of time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and likewise outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
The remaining discrimination allegation was described in the judgment as a claim that Mr Uppal had been discriminated against for 'having kids'. The tribunal dismissed that claim because it considered that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No remedy was awarded. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claim for unlawful deductions of unauthorised wages was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal recorded a discrimination allegation described as being 'for having kids' and dismissed it on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.