Case 3201438/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Ali v London General Transport Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201438/2022
- Decision date
- 23 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claim of unauthorised deductions from wages because it was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present that claim within the time limit.
The Tribunal found that the disability discrimination claim was presented within a period it considered just and equitable. It therefore treated that claim as presented within the time limit under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not record any remedy or determination of the substantive discrimination allegations.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as presented outside the time limit under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determines only that the disability discrimination claim was presented within a period the Tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. It does not determine the substantive merits of the claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.