Case 2407710/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Maiche v Seashell Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407710/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Maiche
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Maiche applied to amend his case to include a race discrimination claim, but that application was refused. The tribunal did not allow the proposed amendment to proceed.
The tribunal then dismissed the unfair dismissal claims under section 98 and section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that those claims were not presented within the applicable time limits and that it was reasonably practicable to do so.
The tribunal also dismissed the breach of contract claim, which encompassed wrongful dismissal and breach of internal procedures, on the same time-limit basis. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claims brought under section 98 and section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because they were not presented within the applicable time limits and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim, including wrongful dismissal and alleged breach of internal procedures, was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limits and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.