Case 1304117/2023 · Employment Tribunal
MOHNEEB AKHTAR v Jaguar Land Rover Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304117/2023
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluggage Appearances
- Venue
- Video CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MOHNEEB AKHTAR
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant complained of unfavourable treatment due to disability during his employment with Jaguar Land Rover Limited. The Respondent conceded that the Claimant was disabled for Equality Act 2010 purposes in relation to depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. The preliminary hearing considered whether the claims had been brought in time and, if not, whether time should be extended.
The Tribunal assumed, for the time jurisdiction issue, that there was a continuing act extending to the grievance decision on 19 January 2022, but rejected any argument that it continued beyond that date through the grievance appeal. On that basis, the claim should have been brought by 18 April 2022, and the 2023 early conciliation period did not extend time.
The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had mental health difficulties throughout the period, but found that he was able to explain his complaints and seek legal advice between 2020 and 2023. It concluded that a further delay of about nine months after June 2022 was unreasonable and excessive, declined to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and dismissed the case.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was brought out of time and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. The merits were not determined. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The list of issues included an allegation of victimisation concerning delay in resolving the grievance. The Tribunal dismissed the case as out of time and did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- continuing act
- just and equitable extension
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
- Aziz v FDA
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Pathan v South London Islamic Centre
- Wells Cathedral School Ltd v Souter
- Robinson v Post Office
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.