Case 3303422/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M I Shaikh v Inspired Property Management Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3303422/2022
- Decision date
- 12 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms G Bhatt MBE, Mr D Wharton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M I Shaikh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed on withdrawal all complaints described as direct discrimination and/or harassment where the relevant protected characteristic was age.
Taking account of early conciliation, the Tribunal held that Equality Act 2010 complaints included in the claim form presented on 16 March 2022 were in time if they related to an act or omission occurring between 4 November 2021 and 16 March 2022, including conduct commencing earlier but continuing until at least 4 November 2021. Only the specified portions of issues 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.12, 3.3.14, 4.1.1 and 5.3.2 met that requirement. All other Equality Act complaints, including complaints added by amendment in November 2025, were out of time, and the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The in-time direct discrimination complaints concerning race, religion or sex failed and were dismissed. The in-time harassment allegation at item 4.1.1 failed insofar as it was related to race and also insofar as it was said to be related to sex or religion. The victimisation complaints that were in time also failed and were dismissed.
The unauthorised deduction from wages complaint concerning holiday pay failed and was dismissed. The complaints concerning deductions for car mileage also failed and were dismissed, regardless of whether those complaints were in or out of time, which the Tribunal did not decide.
The Tribunal found that the effective date of termination was no later than 19 February 2024 and that the unfair dismissal time limit expired no later than 18 May 2024. It was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented by that date, so the unfair dismissal complaint was out of time and was dismissed. The Tribunal also found that the claimant's termination of employment by his email of 18 February 2024 was not a dismissal and did not amount to constructive dismissal.
The judgment records no monetary award or other financial remedy.
Claims and outcomes
12 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | All complaints described as direct discrimination and/or harassment where the protected characteristic was age were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Harassment | All complaints described as direct discrimination and/or harassment where the protected characteristic was age were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The in-time direct discrimination complaints where the relevant protected characteristic was race failed; the remaining Equality Act complaints were dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The in-time direct discrimination complaints where the relevant protected characteristic was religion failed; the remaining Equality Act complaints were dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The in-time direct discrimination complaints where the relevant protected characteristic was sex failed; the remaining Equality Act complaints were dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time
- reasonably practicable test
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.