Case 2416508/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Siddiqui v Markazi Jamia Masjid Gulzar and Madina PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416508/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Siddiqui
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Manchester on 6 October 2020, Employment Judge Batten sitting alone considered Mr M Siddiqui’s unfair dismissal claim against Markazi Jamia Masjid Gulzar and Madina. The hearing was recorded as a preliminary hearing, and the judgment was issued as a short oral decision.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim had not been presented within the time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within that period.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. No remedy or award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary jurisdiction decision: the claim was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.