Case 2303046/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Afridi v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303046/2022
- Decision date
- 12 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Afridi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned time limits only. The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable for it to be presented in time. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the complaints of direct race discrimination and direct religion discrimination were presented outside the applicable time limit. However, it concluded that it was just and equitable to extend time for those complaints, so they were allowed to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the direct race discrimination complaint was presented out of time, but extended time on just and equitable grounds, so the complaint will proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found the direct religion discrimination complaint was presented out of time, but extended time on just and equitable grounds, so the complaint will proceed. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
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.
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.