Case 2603056/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Aliyu v De Montfort University — 2023
- Case reference
- 2603056/2021
- Decision date
- 29 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Aliyu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge K Welch sitting alone on 29 June 2023 at Leicester Employment Tribunal. The claimant, Mr S Aliyu, appeared in person with support from Miss E Edwin, and the respondent, De Montfort University, was represented by Mrs K Hurst, solicitor.
The tribunal dealt with two claims: unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from pay. It found both claims had been presented out of time. The tribunal further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented in time, so there was no jurisdiction to hear either claim.
Both claims were therefore dismissed. The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so there was no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so there was no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable test
- jurisdiction
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.