Case 3303350/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the First v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 3303350/2020
Decision date: 19 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Foxwell Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the First

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr S Temba brought claims against Shorterm Limited and Liquid Friday Limited, heard at Watford on 19 October 2022 before Regional Employment Judge Foxwell. The tribunal recorded that the unlawful age discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal.

The race discrimination claim was found to have been presented outside the statutory time limit. The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the claim.

The claims for alleged unpaid wages, holiday pay, and notice pay were also presented outside the statutory time limits. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented in time, so it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed them.

For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal stated that it did not accept the claimant's unfair dismissal claim because he lacked sufficient qualifying service to bring it. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Age	—
Race discrimination	Presented outside the statutory time limit; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore lacked jurisdiction.	Dismissed	Race	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Presented outside the statutory time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore lacked jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Presented outside the statutory time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore lacked jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Notice pay claim presented outside the statutory time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore lacked jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Not accepted because the claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service to bring the claim.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.