Case 2207371/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Jehad Shahin v Russell Finex Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2207371/2023
Decision date: 10 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Representation Claimant

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Jehad Shahin

Respondent

Russell Finex Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a public preliminary hearing to decide time limits. The claimant, Jehad Shahin, had been employed as an Export Sales Coordinator from 4 April 2022 and was dismissed on 6 December 2022 with immediate effect and one week's pay in lieu of notice. His clarified claims included direct race discrimination, direct religion or belief discrimination, harassment on the grounds of race and/or religion, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unlawful deduction from wages in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid bonus. He presented his claim on 3 May 2023 after an ACAS certificate issued on 6 April 2023.

For the discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the latest act complained of was the dismissal on 6 December 2022, so the ACAS contact date of 4 April 2023 was outside the three-month limit. Applying section 123 Equality Act 2010 and the early conciliation extension in section 140B, the tribunal accepted that the claimant knew by January 2023 that he could bring an Employment Tribunal claim and was advised in March 2023 that the claim might be out of time, but he did not seek specific advice about time limits and relied on a mistaken Google search and an incorrect belief that time ran from his January grievance. The tribunal found that his continued ignorance of the time rules was not reasonable, that the delay was almost two months, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

For the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal treated the final payment as having been made on 16 December 2022 and applied the three-month limit in section 23 ERA 1996, extended for early conciliation under section 207B. It found that the last day to contact ACAS was 15 March 2023, but the claimant did not do so until 4 April 2023. The tribunal rejected illness as the reason for lateness, finding instead that he was working in more than one role and was focused on his jobs and supporting his partner, and it held that it was reasonably practicable to present the wages claim in time.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Dismissed at the preliminary hearing as out of time; the tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds.	Dismissed	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Dismissed at the preliminary hearing as out of time; the tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Harassment	Harassment said to be on the grounds of race and/or religion was dismissed as out of time; the tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination was dismissed with the other discrimination claims because the tribunal found the claims were presented out of time.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Other	Discrimination arising from disability was dismissed with the other discrimination claims because the tribunal found the claims were presented out of time.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Other	Failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed with the other discrimination claims because the tribunal found the claims were presented out of time.	Dismissed	Disability

Legal tests applied

9 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.