Case 1311864/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Y. Alem v Uber Britannia Ltd — 2025

Case reference: 1311864/2024
Decision date: 16 December 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Noons

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Y. Alem

Respondent

Uber Britannia Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of the reserved judgment sent to the parties on 16 December 2025. The tribunal treated the application as one under Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 and found that it had been made within time.

The judgment records that, at a public preliminary hearing on 10 November 2025, direct race discrimination complaints numbered 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 were dismissed because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Direct race discrimination complaints numbered 6.4 and 6.5, and victimisation complaints numbered 9.1 and 9.2, were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

On reconsideration, the tribunal found that the application sought to challenge findings and conclusions already addressed in the reserved judgment and did not show a reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration was refused.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This 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	Direct race discrimination complaints numbered 6.4 and 6.5 were struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 38(1)(a).	Struck out	Race	—
Race discrimination	Direct race discrimination complaints numbered 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 were found not to have been presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed those complaints.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	Victimisation complaints numbered 9.1 and 9.2 were struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 38(1)(a).	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.