Case 2403659/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Essa v Abba Cars Warrington Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2403659/2024
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Essa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anderson, sitting alone in Liverpool via CVP on 14 May 2025, held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr A Essa's unfair dismissal complaint because it was presented outside the relevant time limit. The Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been submitted within time.
The Tribunal also held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the direct race discrimination complaints because they were presented outside the relevant time limits. It was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the relevant time limit and it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been submitted within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the direct race discrimination complaints were presented outside the relevant time limits and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.