Case 1310812/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A RASHID v DHL Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1310812/2022
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A RASHID
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant should be permitted to bring claims for unlawful deduction from wages and disability discrimination outside the relevant statutory time limits.
For the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the Tribunal found that the claimant had not brought the claim within the time limit under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for him to do so within the relevant period. For the disability discrimination claim, the Tribunal found that the claimant had not brought the claim within the time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time.
Both claims were dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was brought outside the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the claim was brought outside the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- 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.