Case 1404417/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Alhalaby v Alpine Property Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404417/2021
- Decision date
- 9 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Alhalaby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing in Exeter on 8 March 2023, before Employment Judge Volkmer, the tribunal dealt with limitation issues only. It held that the unfair dismissal, breach of contract and holiday pay claims were brought out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for those claims to have been brought in time. Those claims were dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the Claimant's discrimination claim was brought out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The extracted text refers only to 'discrimination' and does not identify the protected characteristic. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Held out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Held out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Held out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The extracted judgment refers only to 'the Claimant's claim for discrimination' and does not identify the protected characteristic; the tribunal held it was brought out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend 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.