Case 2300602/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300602/2019
- Decision date
- 30 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary issue hearing on 30 October 2019 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sitting alone, the tribunal dealt with limitation and case management issues only. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr Alam to present his unfair dismissal claim within the applicable time limit, and that he did present that claim within such further period as was considered reasonable. For that reason, an extension of time for the unfair dismissal claim was granted.
The tribunal also held that it was just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claims. The respondent's application for strike out, or alternatively for a deposit order, failed. The judgment does not determine the merits of any claim or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal granted an extension of time for the unfair dismissal claim after finding it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the claim within the applicable time limit and that he presented it within such further period as was considered reasonable. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claims. The extracted judgment does not identify the protected characteristic(s) or decide the merits of those claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not 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.
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.