Case 2603572/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. I Khan v Citizens Advice Nottingham & District Bureau — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603572/2019
- Decision date
- 18 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. I Khan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Khan's unfair dismissal claim had already been dismissed on 7 February 2020 because he did not have two years' service. At this hearing, the tribunal dealt with the remaining direct discrimination complaints pleaded on race and religion, and recorded that the sexual orientation complaint was no longer being pursued and would be dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal held that the race and religion complaints were presented out of time, treating 16 August 2019 as the relevant date of dismissal, but it exercised its discretion under section 123 Equality Act 2010 to extend time. Applying the Keeble factors, the judge found the delay was 25 days, that the evidence was unlikely to be affected, and that the claimant had some prejudice if the discrimination claims could not be heard. The judge also noted that the claimant had been able to appeal on 22 August 2019 and later write to the respondent alleging discrimination on 3 December 2019, which weighed against his explanation that he could not act sooner. The question whether earlier acts formed part of a continuing course of conduct under section 123(3)(b) was left for the final hearing.
The respondent's strike-out application under rule 37 was refused because the allegations were fact-sensitive and required oral evidence. The claimant's complaint about lack of support, feedback and engagement during probation was allowed to proceed, but he was told to provide further particulars because the allegations had not been fully set out.
The tribunal made a rule 39 deposit order of £50 only in relation to the specific allegation that termination of employment was an act of direct discrimination. The judge found that allegation had little reasonable prospect of success because the claimant was uncertain why he had been dismissed, accepted there may have been performance issues, and was not clear whether he relied on race, religion, or another reason. The claimant said his disposable income was £100 per month.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Already dismissed by Employment Judge Adkinson on 7 February 2020 because the claimant did not have the two years' service required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and the tribunal also recorded that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination pleaded with religion under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal extended time under section 123, refused the strike-out application, and left the support/engagement allegations to further case management; it made a £50 deposit order only in relation to the specific termination allegation, with no final merits determination at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination pleaded with race under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal extended time under section 123, refused the strike-out application, and left the support/engagement allegations to further case management; it made a £50 deposit order only in relation to the specific termination allegation, with no final merits determination at this hearing. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | At the hearing the claimant said he was no longer pursuing this claim, and the judgment says a separate order would dismiss it on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor
- Community Law Clinic Solicitors v Methuen
- Wong v Igen Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomuna International Plc
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd
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.