Case 2415146/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Tariq v Smart NYD Limited t/a New York Diner — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415146/2019
- Decision date
- 28 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Tariq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Tariq was 16 at the relevant time and was already suffering from anxiety and depression before she started work for the respondent. The tribunal accepted her evidence that her mental health worsened after dismissal, noted that she did not know about tribunal claims until her college counsellor raised the issue in early November 2019, and recorded that she then acted promptly through the Citizens Advice Bureau, ACAS and early conciliation.
The tribunal refused an amendment application to add breach of contract complaints for notice pay and failure to provide itemised payslips. It also held that the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 ERA 1996 could not be heard because the claimant had less than two years' service, and dismissed the section 103A ERA 1996 whistleblowing unfair dismissal complaint and the unlawful deduction from wages complaints because they were presented out of time and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time.
The tribunal dismissed the complaints of sexual harassment and harassment related to disability concerning comments about the claimant's self-harm scars, holding that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims. It found that, for those complaints, the claimant had continued working after the alleged conduct and could have taken steps within the time limit.
By contrast, the tribunal extended time for the victimisation complaint, the direct age discrimination complaint and the indirect age discrimination complaint to the extent the alleged acts formed part of a continuing act ending with dismissal or shortly before it. It said those claims would proceed to a final hearing, and that the final tribunal would decide whether the earlier acts were part of a continuing act and, if not, whether any further extension of time was just and equitable. The reasons given for extending time included the claimant's young age, her lack of knowledge of tribunal rights, the effect of depression, and the fact that she acted swiftly once she was advised of her rights.
A separate harassment complaint concerning Ms Khan's email of 2 December 2019 was also recorded as being in time and proceeding to the final hearing. The extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic for that complaint.
Claims and outcomes
9 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the section 103A ERA 1996 whistleblowing unfair dismissal complaint because it was presented out of time and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 ERA 1996 was dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' service, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present them within the normal time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the complaints of sexual harassment as out of time and held it was not just and equitable to extend time. It recorded that the alleged sexual harassment had stopped on 8 March 2019 and that the claimant continued working afterwards. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the harassment complaint said to relate to Ms Khan allegedly pointing out the claimant's self-harm scars. It treated this as a single incident a couple of months before dismissal and found it was not just and equitable to extend time. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- continuing act of discrimination
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.
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.