Case 1805646/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Akhtar v Mr A Hussain t/a Hussain & Associates – Hill Top Dental and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805646/2020
- Decision date
- 24 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss A Akhtar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's complaints were submitted outside the applicable three-month time limit. In relation to the unfair dismissal complaint, it did not consider that it had been not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear it and struck it out.
In relation to the race discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. On that basis also, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction and struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the applicable 3 month time limit; the tribunal did not consider it had been not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Presented outside the applicable 3 month time limit; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.