Case 2401221/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I D Plotog v Portable Battery Recycling Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401221/2024
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I D Plotog
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Leach sitting alone in Manchester considered two Equality Act complaints brought by Mr I D Plotog against Portable Battery Recycling Limited: harassment said to relate to comments in December 2022, and direct discrimination said to have taken place in June 2023. The tribunal heard the matter in private on 16 June 2025 with an interpreter present.
The tribunal held that both complaints were presented outside the time limit in section 123(a) Equality Act 2010. It further decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(b). On that basis, both the harassment complaint and the direct discrimination complaint were dismissed.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining complaints were allowed to proceed to a final hearing. No remedy was awarded on the dismissed preliminary complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint relating to comments alleged to have been made in December 2022. The tribunal held it was presented outside the time limit in section 123(a) Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(b). | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination alleged to have taken place in June 2023. The tribunal held it was presented outside the time limit in section 123(a) Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(b). | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(b) Equality Act 2010
- 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.