Case 3300199/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Choudhary v Single Resource Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300199/2021
- Decision date
- 17 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr H Choudhary
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal dismissed all claims based on marriage and civil partnership because it found the claimant did not have that protected characteristic, as defined by section 8 of the Equality Act 2010, at any relevant time.
The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to determine complaints of discrimination or harassment relating to comments allegedly made to the claimant's partner. Those complaints were presented outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The judgment records that the claim form did not contain allegations of age discrimination, age-related harassment, or victimisation. The remaining claims were not determined at this hearing; they were allowed to proceed, and the respondents' strike-out applications were refused.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant did not have the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership within section 8 Equality Act 2010, so all claims related to that characteristic were dismissed. | Dismissed | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine harassment complaints relating to comments allegedly made to the claimant's partner because they were out of time under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The underlying protected characteristic is unclear from the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine discrimination complaints relating to comments allegedly made to the claimant's partner because they were out of time under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The underlying discrimination type is unclear from the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 8 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.