Case 3201515/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ameen v Bow School and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201515/2020
- Decision date
- 30 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Ameen
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 8 July 2016 and presented his tribunal claim on 9 June 2020. The tribunal stated that the hearing was only about time limits and made no findings about whether the factual basis of the claims was well-founded.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's trade union initially gave incorrect advice about his ability to bring such a claim. However, it found that the claimant knew by July 2018 at the latest that he could bring a tribunal complaint and that it was already out of time. Even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit, the tribunal found it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter.
For the discrimination claims, the tribunal applied the just and equitable extension test. It took into account the importance of discrimination claims being heard, but found that the respondents had not known until June 2020 that they would need to defend claims relating to events almost four years earlier. The tribunal accepted that the passage of time affected witness availability and the cogency of evidence, and concluded that a fair trial would no longer be possible. It declined to extend time and struck out the discrimination claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time, it was reasonably practicable to have presented it within time and/or it was not presented within a reasonably practicable time thereafter, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the race discrimination complaint was presented out of time, it was not just and equitable to extend time, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the sex discrimination complaint was presented out of time, it was not just and equitable to extend time, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found the religion or belief discrimination complaint was presented out of time, it was not just and equitable to extend time, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Limited
- North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Zhou
- John Lewis plc v Charman
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- s.33(3) Limitation Act 1980
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.