Case 1308212/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Ahmed v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1308212/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was a preliminary decision on limitation and withdrawal. The claimant withdrew his complaint of direct race discrimination. The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint and the complaint that dismissal was discrimination arising from disability had been brought in time, so those complaints were to proceed to a final hearing.
The remaining disputed preliminary issues concerned race-related harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The race-related harassment allegations concerned incidents between 2016 and 2018, and the reasonable adjustments complaint concerned the claimant working in Body Shop 3 under particular managers until 17 January 2019. The claimant did not begin early conciliation until 21 July 2019, so those complaints were out of time.
In deciding whether to extend time, the tribunal considered the length of delay, the claimant's explanations, his use of internal grievance processes, his health, advice or support from trade union representatives, and the prejudice to each side. It concluded that the claimant had not shown that it was just and equitable to extend time, noting in particular the substantial delay, the reasons given, and the likely evidential difficulties with historic allegations. The race-related harassment and reasonable adjustments complaints were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant clarified at the preliminary hearing that he wished to withdraw the direct race discrimination complaint. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment complaints were dismissed because they were presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was found to have been brought in time and was ordered to proceed to final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint that dismissal was discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was found to have been brought in time and was ordered to proceed to final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 33(3) Limitation Act 1980
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough v Afolabi
- Robertson and Bexley Community Centre (trading as Leisure Link)
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University v Morgan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Hawkins v Ball
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.