Case 1802544/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Parascandolo (Solicitor) For the v Mr M Farooq (Solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802544/2022
- Decision date
- 28 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Parascandolo (Solicitor) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 28 October 2022, the tribunal considered whether the claimant’s discrimination complaint(s), presented on 26 May 2022, were in time. The tribunal recorded that the last asserted act was 26 January 2022 and that, even allowing for early conciliation, the claim was still outside the primary limitation period under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant had access to specialist legal advice from April 2022 and no obstacle prevented him from issuing against the correct respondent within time. It accepted that he had first pursued early conciliation and then issued a defective claim against Leeds Community Health NHS Care Trust, which he later withdrew, before attempting to amend that claim and then starting a second early conciliation process and presenting the current claim on 26 May 2022. The judge held that the wrong-respondent problem did not justify extending time.
Applying the authorities on limitation and the just and equitable discretion, including Dedman, Palmer & Saunders, British Coal v Keeble, Robertson, Simms, Afolabi, Adedeji, Sterling and Cranwell, the tribunal concluded that the 28-day delay beyond the primary period was not excused and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal did not determine the underlying discrimination allegations on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment opening describes the case as disability discrimination complaints, but paragraphs 8.1 and 8.7 refer to the pleaded detriment as being because of sexual orientation. The tribunal decided limitation only and did not reach the substantive merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.123 EqA 2010
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend BC
- British Coal v Keeble
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Simms v Transco
- Abertawe Local Health Board v Morgan
- Afolabi v Southwark BC
- DCA v Jones
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Adedeji v University of Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Sterling v United Learning Trust
- Cranwell v Cullen
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.