Case 3206895/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Aamir Malik v Uber London Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206895/2021
- Decision date
- 16 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aamir Malik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's Uber account was suspended on 21 May 2021 and that he was later told by telephone that the decision to end the arrangement was permanent and could not be appealed. An email of 16 June 2021 confirmed that Uber had exercised its right to terminate the services agreement, although the claimant could not open the attached notice.
The tribunal did not determine whether the claimant was an employee. It held that, if he was an employee, any unfair dismissal claim had to be brought within three months of dismissal unless it was not reasonably practicable to do so. The tribunal found that the claimant knew by the telephone call and email that the arrangement had ended permanently, even though he did not know the reason and could not read the attachment.
On that basis, the tribunal found the three-month limitation period expired on 7 September 2021, before ACAS early conciliation began on 21 September 2021, so conciliation did not extend time. It also found there was nothing preventing the claimant from presenting his claim in time and that, in any event, the later delay until 10 November 2021 was unreasonably long.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the claim was struck out because it was presented outside the time limit for unfair dismissal; the tribunal said it had to dismiss the claim on limitation grounds and did not decide employment status. | 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.