Case 2402412/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Ali v Dnata Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 2402412/2021
Decision date: 31 May 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Ali

Respondent

Dnata Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The preliminary hearing was listed to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claims that were presented outside the statutory time limits. The claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy with effect from 31 October 2020, contacted ACAS on 11 February 2021, and submitted the claim by post on 11 March 2021.

For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought the claim in time. It found that he knew there was a mechanism to bring a claim, had expressed an intention to do so, and had the ability to find out about time limits using his phone. It rejected the submission that he was unable to function in a way that prevented him from finding out about time limits and starting early conciliation.

For the discrimination complaints, the Tribunal accepted for the purposes of the preliminary hearing that time could run from the date of dismissal, but decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. It considered that the underlying matters went back to 2019 and early 2020, that the claimant had not brought a claim at earlier points when those matters arose, that he had notice of dismissal from 1 October 2020, and that there was no good reason for the delay. The Tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the claim in its entirety.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed because the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The judgment refers to discrimination complaints under the Equality Act 2010 on various protected grounds but does not set out the race allegations in detail. The gov.uk listing identifies race discrimination. The complaints were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they were presented outside the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and time was not extended.	Dismissed	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The judgment records an allegation including refusal of short breaks for prayers required by the claimant's Islamic faith. The complaints were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they were presented outside the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and time was not extended.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Sex discrimination	The judgment refers to discrimination complaints under the Equality Act 2010 on various protected grounds but does not set out the sex allegations in detail. The gov.uk listing identifies sex discrimination. The complaints were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they were presented outside the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and time was not extended.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

14 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.