Case 2600030/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Mussa v Sitel UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600030/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Mussa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the requisite period of continuous employment needed to bring that claim.
The tribunal dismissed the unpaid wages and breach of contract claims because they were submitted outside the applicable time limit and it found that it had been reasonably practicable for them to have been submitted in time.
The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim because it was submitted outside the time limit and the tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons available only if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have the requisite period of continuous employment to bring the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Described in the judgment as a claim for unpaid wages; dismissed because it was submitted outside the time limit and it was reasonably practicable to submit it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because it was submitted outside the time limit and it was reasonably practicable to submit it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because it was submitted outside the time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.