Case 1802576/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Zeb v Princes Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802576/2021
- Decision date
- 14 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Zeb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Leeds by video before Employment Judge Knowles on 14 December 2021, held that the Claimant's claims were brought outside the applicable time limit. It further found that time should not be extended, and on that basis the claims were dismissed.
The written judgment does not set out the detailed factual basis of the pleaded complaints, but the GOV.UK listing identifies the case as involving disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. No remedy was awarded because the claims did not succeed on the time-limit issue.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded allegations, but the GOV.UK listing for the case categorises it as disability discrimination. The tribunal dismissed the claims because they were presented outside the time limit and time was not extended. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment does not set out the substantive unfair dismissal allegations, but the GOV.UK listing for the case categorises it as unfair dismissal. The tribunal dismissed the claims because they were presented outside the time limit and time was not extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.