Case 3304006/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Moradi Mohades v Boots Management Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304006/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Moradi Mohades
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought disability discrimination complaints arising from his dismissal and from a communication by the respondent to University College London and the General Pharmaceutical Council. The tribunal assumed, for the purposes of the preliminary hearing, that the claimant would establish disabilities within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant had access to legal advice from an early stage, had engaged with Acas in March 2023, and was aware of facts giving rise to his potential complaints well before presenting the claim on 17 April 2024. It found his reasons for delay unconvincing and concluded that the delay was significant in employment tribunal terms.
The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The disability discrimination claims were therefore dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them, and it was unnecessary to decide the respondent's strike out application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the disability discrimination claims were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so there was no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434
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.