Case 3303549/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Don v De Silva Tesco Stores Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303549/2020
- Decision date
- 17 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Don
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at Watford on 5 May 2021 before Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone. The written record states that the hearing was not objected to, that a face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and that no lay members sat with the judge.
The tribunal's judgment was limited to a preliminary issue. It held that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit for the presentation of the claimant's complaint of race discrimination/harassment to 28 March 2020. No substantive liability findings and no monetary remedy were recorded in the written judgment. The record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment only decided a preliminary time-limit issue and extended the time limit for presentation of the claimant's race discrimination complaint to 28 March 2020; no merits finding was made in this written judgment. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment only decided a preliminary time-limit issue and extended the time limit for presentation of the claimant's race discrimination/harassment complaint to 28 March 2020; no merits finding was made in this written judgment. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.