Mr R M G Hamid v Dyson Limited — 2023

Case reference: 1804896/2022
Decision date: 31 January 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rostant Representation
Venue: Sheffield

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R M G Hamid

Respondent

Dyson Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing in Sheffield on 16 January 2023, Employment Judge Rostant held that the claims were presented outside the relevant time limits. The judgment states that it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented within time.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Dismissed because the claims were presented outside the relevant time limits and it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Dismissed because the claims were presented outside the relevant time limits and it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed because the claims were presented outside the relevant time limits and it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Dismissed because the claims were presented outside the relevant time limits and it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.