Case 2306450/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mx U Miah v Synnovis Analytics LLP — 2025

Case reference: 2306450/2023
Decision date: 20 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Heath Representation

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mx U Miah

Respondent

Synnovis Analytics LLP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Heath on 20 January 2025 to consider the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's disability and race discrimination claims on the basis that they were out of time. The respondent confined its strike-out application to time points and accepted that one complaint (the reframing of the return to work meeting of 23 September 2023) was in time. The judgment recorded is that the claimant's claims are not struck out.

Applying the principles in E v X and others UKEAT/0079/20, the judge considered whether the claimant had established a reasonably arguable basis that the various acts were linked as continuing acts or an ongoing state of affairs. The judge found that the claimant had raised a prima facie case of a continuing act of discrimination, noting her contentions that adjustments were continuously withheld and that there was ongoing dialogue and formal process around adjustments, with the return to work meeting arguably concerning the same subject matter.

On extension of time, the judge held it was reasonably arguable that it would be just and equitable to extend time, having regard to the claimant's account of her ill-health (including diagnoses of severe mental health conditions and autism spectrum disorder said to affect cognition and executive function) and her pursuit of internal resolution before bringing a claim. The judge expressly did not determine the just and equitable question finally, leaving these matters to be decided at a full hearing.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the disability discrimination claim on time-limit grounds and declined to strike it out, finding the claimant had established a prima facie case of a continuing act and a reasonably arguable basis for a just and equitable extension of time. The substantive claim was not adjudicated.	Other	Disability	—
Race discrimination	Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's strike-out application on time-limit grounds was not granted; the claim was not struck out. The substantive race discrimination claim (including allegations of remarks attributed to Ms Shah on 24 January 2022) was not adjudicated at this hearing.	Other	Race	—
Harassment	Preliminary hearing only. Disability-related harassment complaint (grievance outcome of 25 April 2022) was among the claims the respondent sought to strike out on time grounds; the strike-out application did not succeed and the claim proceeds. No substantive determination was made.	Other	Disability	—
Victimisation	Preliminary hearing only. Victimisation claim (protected act being the grievance, in respect of the grievance outcome of 25 April 2022) was among the claims considered on the strike-out application; it was not struck out. No substantive determination.	Other	—	—
Disability discrimination	Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the disability discrimination claim on time-limit grounds and declined to strike it out, finding the claimant had established a prima facie case of a continuing act and a reasonably arguable basis for a just and equitable extension of time. The substantive claim was not adjudicated.

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.