Case 2203017/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr I Al-Ojaili v Incopro Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2203017/2019
Decision date: 27 November 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Professor

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr I Al-Ojaili

Respondent

Incopro Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The hearing was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Professor A C Neal. The respondent attended; the claimant did not appear and was not represented. The tribunal dealt with jurisdiction and limitation issues raised by the claim form and response.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had not completed the two-year qualifying period required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996; the latest effective date of termination was 15 March 2019 and the employment had started on 2 May 2018.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	Dismissed as out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time because the claimant did not attend or give evidence.	Dismissed	Race	—
Disability discrimination	Dismissed as out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time because the claimant did not attend or give evidence.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Dismissed as out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time because the claimant did not attend or give evidence.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—

Legal tests applied

12 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.