Case 3304183/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gokhan Ozcan v Ocado Central Services Ltd RECORD OF AN OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 3304183/2022
- Decision date
- 1 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gokhan Ozcan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe open preliminary hearing was ordered to decide whether the tribunal could hear the claim because it appeared to have been presented out of time. The claimant's employment ended on 18 November 2021, Acas was notified on 24 March 2022, and the claim was presented on 1 April 2022.
Employment Judge Alliott found it was arguable that the claimant's disability discrimination complaints extended to the appeal not being heard, which might form the end point of a course of conduct. In any event, the tribunal considered whether to extend time if it ran from dismissal.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had reasonable ignorance of the time limit, was dealing with illness, bereavement and being outside the jurisdiction, and that the six-week delay was not excessive. It found the respondent would not be prejudiced in terms of the cogency of evidence and extended time for the claim to be brought to 1 April 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Open preliminary hearing on limitation only. The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis; the merits of the disability discrimination claim were left for a full merits hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisurelink [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.