Case 3300088/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dost v Ferrovial Construction (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300088/2020
- Decision date
- 2 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dost
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Dost brought direct discrimination complaints against Ferrovial Construction (UK) Limited. The case management summary limited the issues to race and/or religion or belief discrimination, with 11 alleged acts said to have occurred between 9 October 2018 and 2 May 2019. The tribunal recorded that the last act relied on was 2 May 2019 and that the ET1 was presented on 5 January 2020, after early conciliation began on 5 November 2019.
The tribunal held that the claims were presented out of time under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It accepted that the claimant had waited for the grievance outcome and said he did not know how to bring an Employment Tribunal claim, but found he was an educated individual, that there was substantial delay after the grievance outcome, and that lack of knowledge, stress, and reliance on ACAS did not amount to good reasons for the delay. The tribunal cited Hutchison v Westward Television Ltd and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust when considering the discretion.
The claims were therefore struck out in their entirety for want of jurisdiction. In the alternative, the tribunal said the pleadings and evidence disclosed little reasonable prospect of establishing any connection between the alleged treatment and the protected characteristics, but it would not have struck the claims out in full on the merits. It indicated that, had jurisdiction existed, it would have considered a deposit order of £20 for each allegation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim. The tribunal struck the claim out in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religion or belief discrimination claim. The tribunal struck the claim out in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- Hutchison v Westward Television Ltd
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Rule 37 strike out
- Rule 39 deposit order
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.