Case 2401142/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Fitim Sylejmani v National Westminster Bank plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401142/2023
- Decision date
- 12 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Liverpool In person
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Fitim Sylejmani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was presented out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within time and, in any event, that it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. The tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed it.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's complaints of race discrimination were presented out of time. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear those complaints and dismissed them. The judgment states, for the avoidance of doubt, that all complaints in the case were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within time and it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the complaints were presented out of time and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- reasonable time thereafter
- just and equitable to extend time
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.