Case 2419891/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mahboob Ahmed Sharif v HM Prison Service — 2021
- Case reference
- 2419891/2020
- Decision date
- 16 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mahboob Ahmed Sharif
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Manchester by CVP on 11 August 2021 before Employment Judge Humble. The claimant was Mr Mahboob Ahmed Sharif and the respondent was HM Prison Service. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were not presented within the relevant time limit. It further found that it was reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been presented in time, so the time-limit point was not extended in the claimant's favour.
The tribunal also held that the age discrimination claim was not presented within the relevant time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for that claim. All claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the relevant time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the breach of contract claim was not presented within the relevant time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held the age discrimination claim was not presented within the relevant time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.