Case 1807135/2020 · Employment Tribunal

1) Mr N Ahmed 2) Mr T Ahmed v Next Distribution Limited — 2021

Case reference: 1807135/2020
Decision date: 17 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Parkin

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

1) Mr N Ahmed 2) Mr T Ahmed

Respondent

Next Distribution Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the claimants' discrimination, notice pay and statutory sick pay claims had been presented in time. The first claimant identified 1 May 2019 as the end of his employment and notified ACAS on 22 July 2019. The second claimant identified 12 February 2019 as the end of his employment and notified ACAS on 13 May 2019. Both claims were presented to the Tribunal on 26 November 2020.

The Tribunal did not accept, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimants had earlier sent paper ET1 claim forms in summer or late summer 2019 which were not received by the Tribunal. It found their evidence on that issue lacked cohesion and credibility, and noted that neither claimant made effective enquiries with the Tribunal over the following 14 to 15 months despite expecting a response.

The Tribunal concluded that the notice pay and statutory sick pay claims were brought very many months out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time. It also concluded that the discrimination claims were out of time and that the claimants had not established that it was just and equitable to allow them to proceed. In the alternative, even if earlier paper claims had been sent and lost, the Tribunal found that waiting a further 14 to 16 months before presenting the claims was not a reasonable further period and did not justify extending time.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Both claimants' age discrimination claims were presented outside the statutory time limit and dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable for them to proceed.	Dismissed	Age	—
Race discrimination	Both claimants' race discrimination claims were presented outside the statutory time limit and dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable for them to proceed.	Dismissed	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Both claimants' religious discrimination claims were presented outside the statutory time limit and dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable for them to proceed.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Disability discrimination	The first claimant's disability discrimination claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable for it to proceed. Disability was denied by the respondent and the full nature of the first claimant's disability was not clearly established at the preliminary hearing.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Breach of contract	Both claimants' notice pay claims were treated as contract claims. They were presented outside the statutory time limit and dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time.

Legal tests applied

7 references

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.