Case 1402553/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Nasir v Teleperformance limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402553/2022
- Decision date
- 19 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Nasir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and had not supplied medical evidence or a witness statement in support of her applications to extend time, despite being required to do so by the case management order. Attempts to contact her on the morning of the hearing were unsuccessful, and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The tribunal found that the claim form was presented on 12 August 2022. Taking account of ACAS early conciliation, the extended limitation deadline was 11 August 2022. The last act complained of was the dismissal on 30 March 2022, so the Equality Act complaints were out of time. No explanation for the delay was provided, and the tribunal declined to extend time on the just and equitable basis.
The tribunal adopted the same approach to the part-time worker complaints. For the unfair dismissal and wages complaints, it found that the Claimant had provided no explanation as to why it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time, and those claims were also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was presented out of time and the Claimant provided no explanation as to why it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaints were dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found the last act complained of was the dismissal on 30 March 2022 and no reason for delay was provided. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age was included within the Equality Act complaints and dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Claims of dismissal and detriment on the grounds of part-time worker status were dismissed as out of time under regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal applied the same approach as for the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- sections 123(1)(a) and (b) Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- just and equitable
- regulation 8 Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- sections 111(2)(a) and (b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable feasibility
- sections 23(2) to (4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rathakrishnan-v-Pizza Express [2016] ICR 23
- Moray Hamilton-v-Fife Council UKEATS/0006/20/SS
- ABMU-v-Morgan [2018] IRLR 1050 (CA)
- Marks & Spencer-v-Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
- Northamptonshire County Council-v-Entwhistle [2010] IRLR 740
- Palmer and Saunders-v-Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119
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.