Case 2200111/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Noorul Ann Khan v Ninety Watches and Jewellery Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200111/2023
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Noorul Ann Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNoorul Ann Khan was employed as a Senior Sales Consultant from 3 August 2020 and was dismissed on 20 June 2022 with pay in lieu of her two-month notice period. The tribunal noted that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim had been withdrawn at the 5 April 2023 case management hearing because the claimant did not have two years' service.
The claimant also applied to amend her claim to add a disability discrimination claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that this was a new cause of action, that the primary time limit had expired on 19 September 2022, and that the amendment application made on 25 April 2023 was therefore out of time. Applying the Selkent and Vaughan principles, it found that the claimant's assumption that she needed medical records and a diagnosis was not reasonable, and that the balance of justice favoured refusing the amendment.
On the race and religion claims, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that the alleged 'a mosque' remark was made possibly in late 2021 and that the alleged 'fucking Paki' remark was made on 10 May 2022. It found that the primary limitation periods expired approximately in February 2022 and on 9 August 2022 for those harassment allegations, and on 19 September 2022 for the dismissal-based discrimination claim. The claim was presented on 6 January 2023 after early conciliation that ran from 1 December 2022 to 6 December 2022, so all substantive Equality Act claims were late.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant spoke to ACAS on 20 June 2022 and was told to wait until 3 August because of service requirements, and that she later relied on a LinkedIn post in November 2022 as the trigger for bringing proceedings. It held that this did not justify extending time, noting that she was already aware that there were time limits, that the LinkedIn material had limited probative value, and that the medical records did not support a finding that she was so unwell between September 2022 and January 2023 that it would be just and equitable to extend time. The direct discrimination and harassment claims were therefore dismissed on limitation and jurisdiction grounds, and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant at the 5 April 2023 case management hearing because she did not have two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination claim pleaded on race and/or religion; dismissed because it was presented outside the primary time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination claim pleaded on race and/or religion; dismissed because it was presented outside the primary time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegation relating to the late-2021 'a mosque' remark and the 10 May 2022 remark; dismissed because it was presented outside the primary time limit and time was not extended. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegation relating to the late-2021 'a mosque' remark and the 10 May 2022 remark; dismissed because it was presented outside the primary time limit and time was not extended. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Pathan v South London Islamic Centre
- Bowden v Ministry of Justice and another
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Newsquest (Herald and Times) Limited v Ms Deborah Keeping
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.