Case 3305516/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Reehal v British Airways plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305516/2020
- Decision date
- 17 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hanning Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Reehal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by video at Watford on 25 March 2021 before Employment Judge Hanning. The written judgment records that the remote format had not been objected to and that no face-to-face hearing was held because it was not practicable and no party requested one.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims because they were brought out of time. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's claims were brought out of time and are dismissed; it does not give separate reasons for this claim in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claimant's claims were brought out of time and are dismissed; it does not give separate reasons for this claim in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claimant's claims were brought out of time and are dismissed; it does not give separate reasons for this claim in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the claimant's claims were brought out of time and are dismissed; it does not give separate reasons for this claim in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.