Case 2411733/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Mustafa v JD Sports Fashion plc HELD AT: Manchester (In Person) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411733/2023
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Lay
- Panel members
- Mr Rowen, Stemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Mustafa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Manchester, gave its judgment orally and recorded it in writing on 16 January 2025, sent to the parties on 23 January 2025. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it: the Claimant did not have the two years' continuous service required by s.108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The remaining race-related claims were dismissed. The Tribunal found that the claim of race related harassment was not well founded, and it also found that the claim of direct race discrimination was not well founded. No separate remedy was awarded on those claims.
The claim of breach of contract was also dismissed as not well founded. The judgment does not record any monetary award or separate remedy component for any claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the Claimant lacked the two years' continuous service required by s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Described in the judgment as race related harassment and found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(a)
- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.