Case 2408925/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Wafash v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408925/2021
- Decision date
- 29 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Wafash
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing judgment on the respondent's application to strike out parts of the claim. The claimant alleged direct discrimination because of race and/or religion or belief, and harassment related to race and/or religion or belief. The respondent denied discrimination and harassment and said the dismissal was on capability grounds following a lengthy ill health absence.
The Tribunal struck out the claims based on allegations from 2017 to February 2019. It found those claims were brought substantially out of time, that there was no reasonable prospect of establishing they formed part of a continuing act with the 6 May 2021 dismissal, and that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a just and equitable extension of time. The Tribunal relied on factors including the length of delay, the absence of a genuine reason for the delay, access to trade union advice, the 2018 ACAS Early Conciliation certificate, and the claimant's ability to raise matters with the Police and by grievance.
The Tribunal did not strike out the claims that the 6 May 2021 dismissal was direct discrimination because of race and/or religion or belief. It held that those claims were in time and that, although addressed separately in a deposit order as having little reasonable prospect of success, the reason for the decision-maker's dismissal decision involved a factual dispute requiring evidence.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claims for harassment related to race, concerning allegations from 2017 to February 2019, were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Claims for harassment related to religion or belief, concerning allegations from 2017 to February 2019, were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claims concerning the earlier allegations from 2017 to February 2019 were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religion or belief discrimination claims concerning the earlier allegations from 2017 to February 2019 were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim that the claimant's dismissal on 6 May 2021 was direct race discrimination was not struck out; the merits were not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Cox v Adecco UKEAT/0339/19
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias [2007] IRLR 630
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2003] IRLR 96
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble [1997] IRLR 336
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434
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.