Case 1305977/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Johal v Align Technology UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305977/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Johal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Johal brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination on grounds of religion and/or belief against Align Technology UK Limited. The hearing was at Birmingham before Employment Judge Kenward on 14 February 2025. No lay members are listed. The judgment was given orally at the hearing and the written record records only the disposal of the claims on limitation grounds.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit and it found that it was reasonably practicable to do so within time. The judgment does not record any substantive finding on the merits of the dismissal claim beyond that limitation ruling.
The religion and/or belief discrimination complaint was also dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. No compensation or other remedy was awarded, and the judgment contains no separate monetary findings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found the religion or belief discrimination complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.