Case 2603204/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr AM Khan v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2603204/2022
- Decision date
- 21 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant appeared in person. The first respondent provided written submissions and the second respondent did not attend, having been disbarred from taking part.
After hearing from the claimant and considering the written submissions, the Tribunal found that the claims were presented out of time. It also found that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers collectively to the claims being out of time and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the claim type is taken from the listing category rather than a detailed description in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers collectively to the claims being out of time and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the claim type is taken from the listing category rather than a detailed description in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment refers collectively to the claims being out of time and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the claim type is taken from the listing category rather than a detailed description in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable to present them in 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.