Case 2402792/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Cain v Hinduja Global Solutions UK Limited HELD AT: Manchester (In public by video) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402792/2024
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Cain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Paul Cain brought a disability discrimination claim against Hinduja Global Solutions UK Limited. On 9 May 2025, Judge Cowx sitting alone held that the claim had been presented out of time on 10 May 2024 and was not brought within such other period as the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it on that basis. In the alternative, the judge said the same claim would also be struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the disability discrimination claim was presented out of time on 10 May 2024 and was not brought within such other period as the tribunal considered just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. In the alternative, the claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.