Case 1306299/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Mr Shobudin, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306299/2019
- Decision date
- 3 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 3 January 2020 before Employment Judge Harding. The claimant did not attend; the respondent was represented by Mr Shobudin, solicitor. The tribunal decided the case on limitation and jurisdiction rather than on the merits of the underlying allegations.
The tribunal held that the race discrimination claim had not been presented within such period as the tribunal considered just and equitable. On that basis, it found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the race discrimination claim and dismissed it.
The tribunal also held that the claims for unpaid wages and unpaid notice pay were submitted out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable to submit those claims within time, so it likewise had no jurisdiction to hear them and dismissed both claims. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal held the race discrimination claim was not presented within such period as the tribunal considered just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the unpaid wages claim was submitted out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to submit it within time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The unpaid notice pay claim was also found to be submitted out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to submit the claim within time and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable
- reasonably practicable
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.