Case 2406078/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Choudry v Capita Customer Management Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406078/2022
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Choudry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's disability discrimination complaint. It found the complaint was presented after the relevant time limit, which the judgment identifies as ending on 26 December 2021, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time to 11 August 2022. The disability discrimination complaints under sections 13 and 20-21 of the Equality Act 2010 were therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also decided it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claim was not presented within three months beginning with 27 September 2021, the effective date of termination, and that it had been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the disability discrimination complaint was presented after the time limit. The judgment refers to complaints under sections 13 and 20-21 Equality Act 2010 and found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within three months of the effective date of termination, 27 September 2021, and was not presented within such further period as was reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time
- reasonably practicable test
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.