Case 3200459/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mustafa Ali v Booker Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200459/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mustafa Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's title was amended by consent to Booker Limited. The claimant withdrew the claim for a redundancy payment, which was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The parties agreed that the remaining claims in the claim form were for unfair dismissal and breach of contract by non-payment of wages, described as sick pay. The Tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 10 May 2021, that the time limit expired on 9 August 2021, and that the claim was presented on 1 February 2022.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims before the expiry of the time limit. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims, and dismissed all claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claim for a redundancy payment was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as breach of contract by non-payment of wages (sick pay). It was dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable
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.