Case 3303481/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Samater Osman v Royal Mail Group Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303481/2019
- Decision date
- 6 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henry Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Samater Osman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing in Watford on 6 June 2019, the tribunal held that Mr Samater Osman’s unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims had not been presented within the requisite three months beginning with the effective date of termination. It found that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented those claims in time and therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain them under s111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal took a different view on the claimant’s complaints of race discrimination and victimisation, which were brought in respect of the dismissal and delay in the appeal. It held that those complaints formed part of a series of acts and that the last act in the series had been presented to the tribunal in time. On that basis, it concluded that it had jurisdiction to entertain the race discrimination and victimisation complaints under s123 of the Equality Act 2010. No merits findings were made on those complaints at this stage.
The judgment also records that claim number 3304713/2018 was consolidated to be heard together with claim number 3303481/2019. No financial remedy was awarded or quantified in this preliminary decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the requisite three months from the effective date of termination and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time. It therefore held it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under s111 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the wrongful dismissal claim was not presented within the requisite three months from the effective date of termination and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time. It therefore held it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under s111 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that, so far as the race discrimination complaint related to the claimant's dismissal and delay in his appeal, it was presented in time because it formed part of a series of acts and the last act in the series was presented to the tribunal in time. The merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing; the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under s123 Equality Act 2010. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that, so far as the victimisation complaint related to the claimant's dismissal and delay in his appeal, it was presented in time because it formed part of a series of acts and the last act in the series was presented to the tribunal in time. The merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing; the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under s123 Equality Act 2010. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable
- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s123 Equality Act 2010
- series of acts
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.