Case 1802506/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Arif v Health and Social Care Information Centre t/a NHS Digital — 2018
- Case reference
- 1802506/2018
- Decision date
- 16 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr J Rhodes, Mr W Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Arif
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Arif brought direct discrimination claims on grounds of race and religion against Health and Social Care Information Centre t/a NHS Digital. The tribunal, sitting at Leeds before Employment Judge Davies with Mr J Rhodes and Mr W Roberts, held that both claims were presented outside the statutory time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal further found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for presenting either claim. On that basis, the direct discrimination claims were dismissed in their entirety. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the direct discrimination claim on the ground of race was not brought within the statutory time limit under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal held the direct discrimination claim on the ground of religion was not brought within the statutory time limit under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- 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.