Case 2221535/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Malik v BDO Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2221535/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Representation
- Venue
- London Central via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Malik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Malik worked for BDO Services Limited as a graduate trainee in audit/financial services from 1 March 2021 until he resigned by email on 15 August 2022; the effective date of termination was 15 September 2022. He presented claims for disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract on 16 June 2024, after ACAS early conciliation began on 8 June 2024 and a certificate issued on 12 June 2024. Following his resignation he was diagnosed in early December 2022 with systemic lupus erythematosus, and later with PTSD and anxiety, which were the conditions relied on for the discrimination claim.
For the unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims, the tribunal applied the three-month limitation period and the reasonably practicable test. It accepted that the claimant was seriously unwell in the three months after termination, was in and out of hospital, and had not yet been diagnosed with SLE; on that basis it was not reasonably practicable to present proceedings by 14 December 2022. However, by spring 2023, when he had started a new job on 22 May 2023 and was fit for work with reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found he could have brought a claim, and it was not satisfied that the 16 June 2024 claim was presented within a reasonable time after expiry of the primary time limit.
The tribunal treated the disability discrimination claim under the just and equitable test in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that there were good reasons for the early delay, but held that the further 18-month delay was too long to extend time. The absence of contemporaneous documents, the claimant's inability to identify when he told managers about his health or asked for adjustments, and the respondent's inability to refresh its witnesses' memories meant that a fair trial was no longer possible. The tribunal therefore refused to extend time and held that it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused to extend time under the just and equitable test and held it had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claim because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the primary limitation period or within a reasonable further period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the primary limitation period or within a reasonable further period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the claim, including the notice pay aspect, was presented out of time and that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the primary limitation period or within a reasonable further period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- 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.
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.