Case 2210037/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Faraz v Dogbot Technology Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210037/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Faraz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal identified Dogbot Technology Limited as the correct respondent, being the entity to which the claimant provided services. It then dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages complaint because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, even if it had not been, the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period.
The race discrimination complaint was also dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment did not determine the merits of either complaint and recorded that the hearing was conducted remotely by CVP with the parties' consent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit. It found it was reasonably practicable to present in time and, in any event, it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit and refused to extend time on the basis that it was not just and equitable to do so. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.