Case 3204185/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M Ali v Cordant Cleaning Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204185/2022
- Decision date
- 15 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bromige Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr. M Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant withdrew his claims against the First Respondent, and those claims were dismissed. Against the Second Respondent, the Tribunal found that the Claimant was not dismissed on 10 February 2022 or at all, so the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded. The Tribunal also stated in the alternative that the unfair dismissal claim was presented 65 days out of time and that it would have been reasonably practicable to present it within the limitation period.
Because the Tribunal found there was no dismissal, it dismissed the breach of contract claim for notice pay against the Second Respondent. The Equality Act 2010 claims against the Second Respondent were also dismissed because they were presented 65 days out of time and the Tribunal found no just and equitable reason to extend time under s.123(2)(b) EqA 2010.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's conduct at the hearing on 6 June 2023 was unreasonable within rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. It assessed the Second Respondent's costs at £2,515 ex VAT and, after taking into account the Claimant's means under rule 84, ordered the Claimant to pay £500 inc VAT in costs.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed against the Second Respondent because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not dismissed; alternatively the claim was 65 days out of time. Claims against the First Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed because the Tribunal found there was no dismissal. Claims against the First Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to Equality Act 2010 claims and dismisses them as 65 days out of time with no just and equitable reason to extend time. The race classification is based on the case listing category rather than a protected characteristic stated in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123(2)(b) EqA 2010
- rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 84 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.