Case 2602828/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Charles Abua-Langi v NISE Security & Facility Management Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602828/2019
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Charles Abua-Langi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was listed for hearing on 31 January 2020 before Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal recorded that he had written on 30 January 2020 saying he was not coming because he was unaware of the hearing, but the notice of hearing had been sent to the postal and email addresses he had provided and there was no evidence that it had not been received. Regional Employment Judge Swann therefore ordered that the hearing remain listed, and that order was also sent to the claimant. The tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence under rule 47 because the evidence showed he knew of the hearing and had chosen not to attend.
On the merits of the pleaded claims, the tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claim had not been presented in time, although it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time, and therefore the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The tribunal also dismissed the claims for discrimination because of race, however pleaded, under Parts 2 and 5 of the Equality Act 2010. Those claims were found to have been presented out of time, and the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the unlawful deduction from wages claim was not presented in time, found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time, and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the race discrimination claims, however pleaded, were not presented in time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47
- reasonably practicable
- 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.