Case 2401944/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ifraax Shide v Consensus Support Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401944/2024
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller-Varey REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ifraax Shide
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester hearing before Employment Judge Miller-Varey, the tribunal dealt only with limitation and jurisdiction. It held that the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the applicable time limit under s.111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. That claim was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal reached the same conclusion on the whistleblowing detriment complaint under s.48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claim was also presented outside the applicable time limit when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so there was no jurisdiction and the claim was dismissed.
The judgment then dealt with the discrimination and harassment complaints together. It found that those complaints were presented outside the time limit in s.123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to permit them to proceed out of time. Those complaints were also dismissed. The record does not set out any substantive findings on liability or any monetary award, and no remedy was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the constructive unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the applicable time limit under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996 when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the whistleblowing detriment claim was presented outside the time limit under s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to complaints of discrimination but does not identify the protected characteristic(s) in the extracted text. Those complaints were found out of time under s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to allow them to proceed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to harassment complaints together with the discrimination complaints. They were found out of time under s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1)(a) 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.