Case 3200289/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Shoukat ali Khokar v Uber Eats UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200289/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Illing Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shoukat ali Khokar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered only the time limit issue for the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the Claimant's engagement with the Respondent ended when his account was permanently deactivated on 22 February 2023, and that the claim presented on 3 February 2024 was outside the primary limitation period.
The Claimant gave reasons for the delay including attempts to resolve the deactivation, limited English, not knowing how to bring a claim, reluctance to pay for advice, and learning from a friend that he could bring a claim. The Tribunal accepted some factual aspects of that evidence but found that he had access to the internet, could have asked family or friends for assistance, and could have sought free advice.
The Tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to issue the claim in time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Palmer
- Dedman
- Asda Stores
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton
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.