Case 2407305/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Nisar Hussain v Cedar Health & Wellbeing Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407305/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Malik
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nisar Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Malik sitting alone in Manchester by CVP on 12 July 2024, the Tribunal recorded that Mr Nisar Hussain’s unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. No merits findings were made on that complaint.
The Tribunal struck out the disability discrimination, age discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, and victimisation complaints because it had no jurisdiction to hear them. It found that they were presented outside the period specified in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2019 and that it was not just and equitable to allow a longer period for presentation.
The judgment records no monetary award and no separate remedy hearing. The result was therefore dismissal of the unfair dismissal complaint on withdrawal and strike-out of the Equality Act complaints on limitation and jurisdiction grounds.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment says it was presented outside the period in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2019 and it was not just and equitable to allow a longer period. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment says it was presented outside the period in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2019 and it was not just and equitable to allow a longer period. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment says it was presented outside the period in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2019 and it was not just and equitable to allow a longer period. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment says it was presented outside the period in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2019 and it was not just and equitable to allow a longer period. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2019
- just and equitable to allow a longer period
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.