Case 3202459/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Ali v The British Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202459/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at East London on 2 May 2024 before Employment Judge A Davidson, dealt with Mr H Ali's claims against The British Council. The judgment records that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so, and the constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
The complaints of age discrimination and race discrimination were also found to have been presented outside the applicable time limit. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time for those claims, so both discrimination complaints were dismissed without any substantive findings on the merits. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed because the complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.