Case 2600672/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Akhtar v Santander UK plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600672/2020
- Decision date
- 29 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Akhtar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on time limits and jurisdiction. The claimant brought unfair dismissal and Equality Act complaints of direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of race, religion and sex. The parties agreed the claim was filed 23 days outside the primary limitation period, after the claimant received the outcome of his internal appeal.
The Tribunal did not accept, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant had been told by the respondent's HR team or by Acas that he had to complete the internal appeal process before issuing a tribunal claim. It also found that the claimant had not shown that health reasons prevented him from presenting the claim in time. The Tribunal found the claimant knew about time limits, had trade union support, and chose to wait for the appeal outcome.
For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within time, so that claim was struck out. For the Equality Act claims, the Tribunal considered all relevant factors and found it just and equitable to extend time to 19 February 2020, noting the 23-day delay, the claimant's prompt action after the appeal outcome, the respondent's records and prior investigations, and the relative prejudice to the parties. The Tribunal made no findings on liability or on whether earlier alleged acts formed part of a continuing course of conduct.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint under sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out under Rule 37 because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the time limit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal decided the race direct discrimination complaint was presented within time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. Liability was not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The Tribunal decided the religion direct discrimination complaint was presented within time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. Liability was not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal decided the sex direct discrimination complaint was presented within time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. Liability was not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal decided the harassment complaint related to race was presented within time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. Liability was not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal decided the harassment complaint related to religion was presented within time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. Liability was not determined at this preliminary hearing. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- section 33(3) Limitation Act 1980
- Adedeji v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Hunwicks v Royal Mail Group plc
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.