Case 2604276/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Q Hu v Nicholas Associates Group Ltd trading as Stafforce and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2604276/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Q Hu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Q Hu, was engaged by Stafforce from 13 December 2019 and deployed to Young's Seafood as a packing worker. He said he was Chinese Asian and disabled by type 1 diabetes. The tribunal heard the case remotely over 16 and 17 February 2022, and noted that he had been told by his doctor on 17 July 2020 about the possibility of bringing an employment tribunal claim. It also noted inconsistencies in his evidence, including his account of a county court personal injury claim that he had instructed solicitors to bring.
The tribunal refused permission to amend the claims to add age discrimination and/or harassment because of age. Applying Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore, it held that the proposed amendment was effectively a new cause of action, was considerably out of time, and had no reasonable prospect of success on the limited material before it. The tribunal then dismissed the disability discrimination and race discrimination claims because they were presented outside the three-month limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal found that the claimant's stated ignorance of tribunal procedure, language difficulties, and alleged medical issues did not make it not reasonably practicable to bring the ERA and Working Time claims in time. It dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, the protected-disclosure dismissal claim, the wages and holiday pay claims, and the breach of contract claim on time-limit grounds. It also held, in any event, that Young's was not the claimant's employer, that ordinary unfair dismissal could not succeed because he had not completed two years' continuous employment with Stafforce, and that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Application to amend to add age discrimination and/or harassment because of age was refused under Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore; the tribunal treated it as a new cause of action, out of time, and without reasonable prospect on the material before it. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed as presented outside the three-month time limit, as extended by early conciliation, and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as presented outside the three-month time limit, as extended by early conciliation, and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time under s.111 ERA 1996; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and also noted that Young's was not the employer and the claimant lacked two years' continuous employment with Stafforce. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected-disclosure dismissal claim/automatic unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- s.111 ERA 1996 not reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Porter v Baindridge Ltd
- Avon County Council v Haywood-Hicks
- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Perth and Kinross Council v Townsley
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Regulation 30 WTR 1998
- Article 4 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.