Case 1400704/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Chenia v Unilever UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400704/2020
- Decision date
- 14 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Chenia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were not presented in time. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented in time, and dismissed them on that basis.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's discrimination claims were not presented in time. It found that it was not just and equitable for those claims to proceed, and dismissed them accordingly.
The judgment note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the written record contains the outcomes but not further reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as not presented in time; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed as not presented in time; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'claims of discrimination' and does not specify the type in the extracted text; disability discrimination is taken from the case listing categories and treated with lower confidence. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'claims of discrimination' and does not specify the type in the extracted text; race discrimination is taken from the case listing categories and treated with lower confidence. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.