Case 3200007/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Madari v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200007/2019
- Decision date
- 30 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Madari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claimant and respondent at a preliminary stage. It found that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented 35 days outside the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time, taking account of the early conciliation extension. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out.
The tribunal also considered the timing of the race discrimination complaints. Those complaints were also presented 35 days outside the time limit, but the tribunal determined that it would be just and equitable to extend time under the Equality Act 2010. The race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed, and the hearing continued as a closed preliminary hearing with case management orders to follow separately.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented 35 days out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory time limit as extended by early conciliation. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal determined that the race discrimination complaints were presented 35 days out of time but that it would be just and equitable to extend time, so those claims were allowed to proceed. The merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- s111 Employment Rights Act 1998
- s.123(3) Equality Act 2010
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.