Case 1401417/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Subhani v Solent Blue Line Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401417/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr L Wakeman, Mr P English
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Subhani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, claim 1401418/2024 was heard together with 1401417/2024. The age discrimination claim in 1401418/2024 was dismissed upon withdrawal, so there was no merits determination on that claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the indirect associative disability discrimination claims because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claims brought under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010. It also dismissed the holiday pay / unlawful deduction of wages claim for one day's pay because it was not brought within the time limit when it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought.
The race discrimination claims at paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.4 were held not to form part of a continuing act, were lodged outside the statutory time limit, and were not permitted to proceed because it was not just and equitable to extend time. The race discrimination claims at paragraph 3.1.5 were found not well-founded and were dismissed. The direct associative discrimination claim was also found not well-founded and dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Claim No. 1401418/2024; the judgment states that the age discrimination claim is "dismissed upon with withdrawal". | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment describes this as indirect associative disability discrimination pursuant to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and dismisses it because the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claims brought thereunder. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claims set out at paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.4 of the revised list of issues were found not to be part of a continuing act, were out of time, and were not extended because it was not just and equitable to do so. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim was described as holiday pay / unlawful deduction of wages for one day's pay and was held to be out of time because it was not brought when it was reasonably practicable to have been brought; the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claims set out at paragraph 3.1.5 were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a direct associative discrimination claim but does not specify the protected characteristic in the extracted text; it was found not well-founded and dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable
- reasonably practicable
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.