Case 2220654/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ziyad Campbell v Tik Tok Information Technologies UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2220654/2024
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ziyad Campbell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ziyad Campbell brought claims including protected disclosure detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages in relation to shares, notice pay, and discrimination claims of age, disability, race, sex and sexual orientation. The judgment records that all of those claims were dismissed on limitation grounds rather than on their substantive merits.
For the protected disclosure detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, and unlawful deductions claims, the tribunal found the claims had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. Those claims were therefore dismissed.
The notice pay claim was also found to have been presented out of time, with the tribunal again finding that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. That claim was dismissed.
The discrimination claims of age, disability, race, sex and sexual orientation were likewise found to have been presented outside the applicable time limit. The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and those claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim in relation to shares dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.