Case 2205774/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Mohammed v Rendall and Rittner — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205774/2020
- Decision date
- 2 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Mohammed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing by CVP on 21 May 2021, Employment Judge Adkin dismissed three claims on limitation grounds. The direct race discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and the harassment related to race claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 were brought out of time, and the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for either claim.
The protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was also dismissed as out of time. The tribunal recorded that there would be no extension under section 48(3) ERA.
The respondent's application to strike out or make deposit orders was refused in respect of the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA, and the victimisation claim. Those claims were ordered to proceed to a five-day final hearing already listed for 13 September 2021. The judge also clarified, for reasons given orally, that the Grounds of Complaint contained an allegation that the dismissal was an act of victimisation, and said that if that was wrong he would have allowed an amendment to make it clear.
The respondent's application for wasted costs from the claimant's representative was agreed by the parties in the sum of £500. The judgment does not allocate that sum to any substantive claim.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed as out of time, with no extension under section 48(3) ERA. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's application to strike out or make a deposit order for the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA was refused; the claim was to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The respondent's application to strike out or make a deposit order for the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA was refused; the claim was to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.