Case 3202220/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Shaan Hussain v Uber London Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202220/2023
- Decision date
- 26 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Shaan Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 25 June 2024 before Employment Judge B Elgot, the Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel. The race discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of religious belief claims were withdrawn by the Claimant, and the judgment records that they were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The remaining claims were unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (described in the judgment as breach of contract), and unlawful deductions from wages. The Tribunal found that those claims had been presented out of time.
The Employment Judge declined to extend the relevant time limit because she was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the claims in time. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the remaining claims and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the Tribunal declined to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Labelled in the judgment as 'wrongful dismissal (breach of contract)'; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time; the Tribunal declined to extend time. | 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.