Case 3200226/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J. Sikander v Nine Food Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200226/2022
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Miss S. Harwood, Mr P. Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J. Sikander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J. Sikander brought disability discrimination allegations against Nine Food Group Limited. The Tribunal separated the case into two groups of allegations. It held that Allegations 2-15 were out of time and that they did not amount to conduct extending over a period so as to link them to the earlier claims in respect of which time had previously been extended.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Allegations 2-15: the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because those allegations were presented outside the statutory time limits and did not amount to conduct extending over a period linked to the earlier claims in respect of which time had already been extended. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Allegations 1, 16 and 17: the Tribunal found these disability discrimination allegations were not well-founded and dismissed them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.