Case 2603694/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Farhadi v De Montfort University — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603694/2019
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Farhadi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ahmed sat alone at a remote hearing on 19 February 2021. The tribunal dealt with three complaints: disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and unlawful deduction of wages.
The disability discrimination complaints were found to have been presented out of time. The tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time, and those complaints were therefore struck out.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. The unlawful deduction of wages complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the disability discrimination complaints had been presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so those complaints were struck out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction of wages complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not just and equitable to extend time
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.