Case 2304110/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Qays Hashmi v Apple Retail UK Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304110/2023
- Decision date
- 14 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sekhon Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Qays Hashmi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 10 October 2024, Employment Judge Sekhon considered amendment and limitation issues arising from Mr Hashmi's claim form dated 6 August 2023. The live case included unfair dismissal and discrimination complaints based on race, disability and religion or belief, and the claimant also relied on a draft list of issues and an oral application to add further disability allegations at the hearing.
Applying Selkent, Vaughan and Abercrombie, the tribunal refused permission to add incidents 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 from the draft list of issues. It found those allegations were new causes of action, were not properly pleaded in the ET1, and would require substantially different factual and legal enquiry. The late oral disability amendment was also refused because it raised new allegations at the hearing, after the respondent had prepared on the pleaded case, and allowing it would cause prejudice and risk the existing February 2025 final hearing.
On time limits, the tribunal held that the race complaint last relied on an incident in February 2022, the religion or belief complaint related to a single incident on 22 July 2020, and the disability complaint also last relied on February 2022 conduct. It found there was no continuing act for any of those claims. Applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the authorities on continuing acts and just and equitable extension, the tribunal refused to extend time. It took account of Mr Hashmi's evidence about ill health, the January 2022 assault and surgery, his grievance, occupational health and attendance meetings, and union assistance, but concluded the delays of 11 to 26 months were not justified.
The result was that the race, disability and religion or belief discrimination claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The unfair dismissal claim, based on the 27 March 2023 dismissal and presented within time, was allowed to continue to the listed final hearing. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was in time and could continue to the listed final hearing; no merits finding was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the race complaint was based on a last alleged act in February 2022, with no continuing act and no just and equitable extension of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the pleaded disability complaint was out of time; an oral application to add allegations that dismissal and refusal of appeal were discriminatory because of disability was also refused. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found the religion or belief complaint concerned a single act on 22 July 2020, was not part of a continuing act, and was out of time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Selkent v Moore balance of injustice and hardship
- Vaughan v Modality practical consequences
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster different areas of enquiry
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks continuing act
- Aziz v FDA prima facie continuing act
- Robertson v Bexley just and equitable extension
- Adedeji delay factors
- Abertawe Morgan discretion
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.