Case 2600342/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Amer Alhaj Zen v Charnwood Molecular Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600342/2021
- Decision date
- 1 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Amer Alhaj Zen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 27 January 2022, Employment Judge Hutchinson sitting alone considered Mr Amer Alhaj Zen's application to amend and a jurisdictional issue on time limits. The claimant had presented his claim on 14 February 2021, after ACAS early conciliation on 28 December 2020, and had been employed by Charnwood Molecular Ltd since 9 October 2014 as a Senior Researcher. The claims had been clarified as including direct race discrimination, direct associative disability discrimination, and harassment related to association with a disabled person.
The tribunal granted permission to amend the claim to add victimisation, breach of contract, and constructive unfair dismissal. Applying the principles in Selkent and Prakash, and taking into account the nature of the amendments, time limits, and the timing and manner of the application, the judge held that Mr Zen would suffer a substantial disadvantage if amendment were refused. The respondent's prejudice was limited because the new matters would largely be dealt with by the same witnesses who were already involved in the case.
The tribunal did not determine whether the direct discrimination claims were out of time. It said that, on the face of it, the furlough pay issue appeared to crystallise when the last payment was made in the August payroll and the flexible working request was rejected in August 2020, but Mr Zen said he only became aware of the difference in treatment around 23 November 2021 and contended that it would be just and equitable to extend time. That issue, together with the merits of the claim, was left to the final hearing listed for January and February 2023. No remedy was decided at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal made no decision on whether this direct race discrimination claim was out of time; that issue was left to the final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal made no decision on whether this direct associative disability discrimination claim was out of time; that issue was left to the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Permission to amend was granted to add this claim. The tribunal noted that some of the alleged victimisation may have been out of time and left any time issue to the final tribunal. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Permission to amend was granted to add this claim; the merits were not determined at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Permission to amend was granted to add constructive unfair dismissal; the merits were not determined at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] IRLR 661
- Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council UKEAT/0140/06
- Employment Tribunals Presidential Guidance Note 1 paragraph 5
- just and equitable extension of time
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.