Case 2202827/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 2202827/2022
Decision date: 7 January 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr L Hussen was employed by AvePoint UK, Ltd from 1 February 2021 until 17 February 2022 as a Senior Account Executive. By letter dated 20 January 2022, the respondent told him his employment would end on 17 February 2022 and placed him on garden leave, citing his 2021 performance and 0% attainment. He presented his ET1 on 18 May 2022, advancing claims of age, race and religion or belief discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay/commission, breach of contract (wrongful dismissal), dismissal for protected disclosure, and unfair dismissal.

At the hearing the claimant accepted he did not have two years' service and withdrew the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, which the tribunal dismissed under section 94 ERA 1996 and Rule 52. The tribunal also found that the ET1 wrongly confirmed an ACAS Early Conciliation exemption. It preferred Ms F Cooper's evidence that the respondent had not contacted ACAS, and it did not accept the claimant's account of an alleged telephone conversation with her about ACAS.

The tribunal held that, because the ET1 did not contain a valid ACAS Early Conciliation number and no exemption applied, it had no jurisdiction to determine the remaining claims and rejected them under Rules 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d). It said that even if that point were wrong, the discrimination claims were out of time because the last alleged act was the dismissal on 17 February 2022 and the primary deadline expired on 16 May 2022; no just and equitable extension was granted. It also found that the notice pay, holiday pay, commission arrears, breach of contract and protected-disclosure dismissal complaints were outside their three-month limits, and that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time.

Claims and outcomes

9 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Withdrawn by the claimant after he accepted he did not have two years' service; dismissed under Rule 52 following withdrawal.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	Rejected under Rules 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) because the ET1 did not contain a valid ACAS Early Conciliation certificate number and wrongly confirmed an exemption; the tribunal also held the claim was out of time and would not extend time.	Other	Age	—
Race discrimination	Rejected under Rules 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) because the ET1 did not contain a valid ACAS Early Conciliation certificate number and wrongly confirmed an exemption; the tribunal also held the claim was out of time and would not extend time.	Other	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Rejected under Rules 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) because the ET1 did not contain a valid ACAS Early Conciliation certificate number and wrongly confirmed an exemption; the tribunal also held the claim was out of time and would not extend time.	Other	Religion or belief	—
Other	Notice pay claim. Rejected under Rules 12(1)(c) and (d) for the ACAS Early Conciliation defect; the tribunal also found it was presented outside the relevant time limit.	Other	—	—
Holiday pay	Rejected under Rules 12(1)(c) and (d) for the ACAS Early Conciliation defect; the tribunal also found it was presented outside the relevant time limit.

Legal tests applied

20 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.