Case 3303718/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Mohamed Razick v West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303718/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr P Miller, Mr A Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Mohamed Razick
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's direct race discrimination claim, direct religion and belief discrimination claim, and harassment claim related to race and religion and belief were all out of time. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so there was no jurisdiction to hear those claims and they were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, which was pleaded as a constructive dismissal claim. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held this direct race discrimination claim was out of time, found it was not just and equitable to extend time, and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal held this direct religion and belief discrimination claim was out of time, found it was not just and equitable to extend time, and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held the harassment claim related to race and religion and belief was out of time, found it was not just and equitable to extend time, and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal (constructive) claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend 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.