Case 2215671/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Baksh v Rossi Facility Services Ltd FULL MERITS HEARING Heard at London Central — 2024
- Case reference
- 2215671/2023
- Decision date
- 28 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr P Madelin, Ms T Shaah
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Baksh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Baksh brought a direct age discrimination claim against Rossi Facility Services Ltd. The hearing was before Employment Judge Nicolle sitting with non-legal members Mr P Madelin and Ms T Shaah at London Central on 28 August 2024. The claimant attended in person, accompanied and assisted by his daughter; the respondent was represented by its Managing Director, Mr E Alksmantas.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the direct age discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 because it was not submitted within the time limit in section 123(1)(a). The tribunal also decided it would not be appropriate to extend time on the just and equitable basis under section 123(1)(b). The claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the direct age discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was presented outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a), and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
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.