Case 3304734/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ali Saeed v Vertue Motors (VMC) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304734/2024
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shrimplin Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ali Saeed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr Saeed's race discrimination complaint because it was not presented within the statutory time limit under the Equality Act 2010. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the race discrimination allegations were not determined on their merits.
It also dismissed the claim described in the judgment as unlawful deduction of wages/breach of contract. The tribunal held that this claim was out of time under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought in time. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as not brought within the statutory time limit under the Equality Act 2010; the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim of 'unlawful deduction of wages/breach of contract'. It was dismissed as not brought within the statutory time limit under the Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was reasonably practicable to bring it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time
- reasonably practicable
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.