Case 3204799/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Sajjad v Arriva London — 2021
- Case reference
- 3204799/2021
- Decision date
- 24 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Sajjad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 24 November 2021 before Employment Judge Porter. The claimant, Mr H Sajjad, appeared in person and the respondent, Arriva London Limited, was represented by Ms H Royle, solicitor.
The tribunal held that the claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract were presented out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable to present those claims in time, and therefore time was not extended to allow them to proceed. As a result, both claims were dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them.
The claim for a redundancy payment was struck out. The tribunal stated that it was presented out of time and that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so time was not extended and the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so time was not extended and the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because it was presented out of time and had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
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.