Case 2215285/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Ian Taylor, union representative For the v Ms Zakia Tahir, solicitor — 2024

Case reference: 2215285/2023
Decision date: 15 April 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Klimov

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Ian Taylor, union representative For the

Respondent

Ms Zakia Tahir, solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary judgment in an unfair dismissal claim brought by Mr C Roche against Royal Mail Group Ltd. The hearing took place by video at London Central on 15 April 2024 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The issue decided was time limits only, not the substantive merits of the dismissal claim.

The tribunal found that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It nevertheless accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, and that it had been presented within a further reasonable period after that point. On that basis, the claim was allowed to proceed.

No remedy was assessed in this judgment and no findings were made on liability for dismissal itself. The written record notes that reasons for the oral judgment would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard practice directions.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal dealt with a preliminary time-limit issue only. It found the claim was presented out of time, but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and that it was presented within a further reasonable period, so the claim was allowed to proceed.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.

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.