Case 2217847/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S. Manoharan v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217847/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S. Manoharan
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's first ET1 was lodged on 15 May 2023 without an ACAS early conciliation number and was rejected. After he obtained an ACAS certificate on 2 June 2023, the tribunal wrote on 2 and 19 June explaining that he needed to submit a fresh claim with the certificate numbers. The accepted ET1 was not filed until 20 December 2023, and the hearing was confined to jurisdiction and limitation.
The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims after accepting that he did not have qualifying service. The tribunal struck out the sex discrimination and gender reassignment complaints under rule 37 because he had not asserted facts showing less favourable treatment because he was a man or because of gender reassignment, and those issues were not being actively pursued.
The tribunal held that the money claims, including notice pay, arrears of pay and holiday pay, were out of time. It rejected the argument that it was not reasonably practicable to present them earlier, noting the claimant's ability to correspond with the respondent, ACAS and the tribunal, and his activity in relation to companies, LinkedIn and other communications. It concluded that he could have acted on the 7 September 2023 email and attached letters within a week or two, but did not refile until 20 December 2023.
The remaining Equality Act complaints, including claims linked to race, religion or belief, age, sexual orientation and marriage/civil partnership discrimination, were also dismissed as out of time and not just and equitable to extend under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal referred to allegations about South Indian/Tamil background and Hindi-speaking managers, leave around Shivatri prayers, teasing about being too young for promotion, an August 2022 comment said to concern sexual orientation, and pressure around his separation, divorce and custody proceedings. It noted that the discriminatory dismissal allegation might have some prospect of success, but that did not justify extending time for the claims as a whole. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
12 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn after the claimant accepted that he did not have qualifying service. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Withdrawn after the claimant accepted that he did not have qualifying service. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | No facts were asserted showing less favourable treatment because he was a man; although not formally withdrawn, the tribunal treated the complaint as not pursued and struck it out under rule 37. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | No facts were asserted for this complaint; struck out under rule 37. | Struck out | Gender reassignment | — |
| Breach of contract | Contractual notice-pay claim based on the 90-day notice term in the 16 August 2022 confirmation letter; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears and final-pay complaints, including the alleged £2,800 deduction, bonus underpayment and pre-start work pay, were dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay |
Legal tests applied
13 references- rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- s.23 ERA 1996 time limit
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order article 7
- regulation 30 WTR 1998 time limit
- not reasonably practicable test
- Tesco Stores Limited v Kayani
- London International College v Sen
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Walls Meat Company Limited v Khan
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- section 123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.