Case 2201357/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person, with assistance from his sister Manjit Sungha For the v Mr I Steel (solicitor for the Respondent) — 2022

Case reference: 2201357/2022
Decision date: 5 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Stout Representations
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person, with assistance from his sister Manjit Sungha For the

Respondent

Mr I Steel (solicitor for the Respondent)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the open preliminary hearing on 5 October 2022, Employment Judge Stout heard Mr H Singh’s claims against Loot Limited and The Color Company Distribution Limited. The judgment records that the disability discrimination claims were out of time under s 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under s 123(1)(b).

The Tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims for unlawful deduction from wages, holiday pay, and notice pay. For those claims, it found that it would have been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to bring the claims within 3 months and that, in any event, they had not been brought within a reasonable further period, referring to s 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, art 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994, and reg 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Because the Tribunal found no jurisdiction for any of the claims, all of the Claimant’s claims were dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or split of remedy between claims.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the disability discrimination claim was brought outside the three-month time limit in s 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time under s 123(1)(b).	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction under s 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 because it would have been reasonably practicable to present the claim within 3 months and, in any event, it was not brought within a reasonable further period.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the holiday pay claim under reg 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because it would have been reasonably practicable to present the claim within 3 months and, in any event, it was not brought within a reasonable further period.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the notice pay claim by virtue of s 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 and art 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994 because it would have been reasonably practicable to present the claim within 3 months and, in any event, it was not brought within a reasonable further period.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

8 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.