Case 1804913/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Din v Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804913/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Din
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds on 6 February 2023, before Employment Judge Bright, the Tribunal dealt with three complaints brought by Mr A Din against Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. The claimant was in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. No substantive merits findings were made; the judgment records procedural disposal of each complaint.
The complaint of religion or belief discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal. The complaint of race discrimination was struck out because the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it: the claim had been presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was also struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the Tribunal having concluded that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of religion or belief discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction because the complaint was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the Tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.