Case 1807389/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Njie v Ikea Distribution Services Limited AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807389/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Njie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 8 December 2021 before Employment Judge Lancaster sitting alone in Leeds, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it was not presented in time and it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been presented sooner. The ruling was about limitation rather than the underlying merits of the dismissal.
The tribunal struck out the direct disability discrimination claim. It was understood to relate to a capability assessment by Wayne Coleman on 12 May 2020. The tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of concluding that it would be just and equitable to extend time until 23 December 2020, and it also said that, as pleaded, the claim would in any event have no reasonable prospect of success.
The remaining discrimination and harassment claims were not struck out. The tribunal held that there was not little or no reasonable prospect of concluding that it would be just and equitable to extend time until 23 December 2020 in respect of the disability-related discrimination claim arising from the dismissal on 29 August 2020, the indirect discrimination claim, the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim, or the religion-related harassment claim. Those claims were allowed to continue to a further hearing, although the tribunal recorded that they might still be found out of time at final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim was not presented in time and that it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been presented sooner. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination, understood to relate to the capability assessment by Wayne Coleman on 12 May 2020. The tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of concluding that it would be just and equitable to extend time until 23 December 2020, and said the pleaded claim would also have no reasonable prospect of success in any event. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability-related discrimination alleged to arise from the dismissal taking effect on 29 August 2020. The tribunal did not strike out the claim and it was allowed to continue to a further hearing, although the tribunal noted it might still be found out of time at final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim. The tribunal did not strike out the claim and it was allowed to continue to a further hearing, although the tribunal noted it might still be found out of time at final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. The tribunal did not strike out the claim and it was allowed to continue to a further hearing, although the tribunal noted it might still be found out of time at final hearing. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable extension of time
- little or no reasonable prospect
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.