Case 1306220/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Birdi v Oak Furnitureland Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306220/2024
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Birdi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short preliminary judgment heard by Employment Judge Maxwell at Birmingham by CVP on 3 February 2025. The Tribunal struck out the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim because it had been presented out of time, so the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction under section 112(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal did not strike out the Claimant's discrimination claim relating to dismissal. It held that it had jurisdiction to hear that claim because it was just and equitable to extend time by 1 day under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the discrimination claim and records no remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time under section 112(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The discrimination claim with respect to dismissal was not struck out. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction because it was just and equitable to extend time by 1 day under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.112(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.