Case 1400978/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Uddin v Eli Lilly and Company Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400978/2019
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Uddin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Southampton on 13 December 2019, before Employment Judge Craft sitting alone, the Tribunal considered claims brought by Mr M Uddin against Eli Lilly and Company Ltd. The Claimant's claims for a redundancy payment and for constructive unfair dismissal within s.95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal also dealt with claims of race, religion and age discrimination. It held that those claims had been presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time to consider them, so it had no jurisdiction to consider them. The Tribunal also found that those discrimination claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal within s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996 was dismissed because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider this claim because it was submitted out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time; it also found no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider this claim because it was submitted out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time; it also found no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider this claim because it was submitted out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time; it also found no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
- just and equitable extension of time
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.