Mr Abdus Samad v Uber London Limited — 2023

Case reference: 3200064/2023
Decision date: 28 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge E Whittall Representation

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Abdus Samad

Respondent

Uber London Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that the claim form had been presented out of time. On that basis, it found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.

The claims were therefore dismissed. The judgment does not set out any separate merits findings on the underlying causes of action.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that the claim form was presented out of time and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claims.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself does not separately identify the claims. The judgment states that the claim form was presented out of time and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claims.	Dismissed	—	—
Working time regulations	Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself does not separately identify the claims. The judgment states that the claim form was presented out of time and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claims.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.