Case 3305602/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Kottapalli v Rajeev — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305602/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch KC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Kottapalli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of an open preliminary hearing held on 10 June 2025 at Watford by CVP before Employment Judge Bloch KC. The claimant did not attend. The respondent attended through Ms A Rumble, instructed by Markel Law LLP. The written record says the tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and later sent the judgment to the parties on 17 July 2025.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of racial discrimination and religious discrimination because they were out of time under section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. It found it was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims.
The tribunal also struck out the unfair dismissal complaint as out of time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1998, as stated in the judgment, and found it was not appropriate to extend time under that provision. It further struck out any complaint of detriment in respect of protected disclosures under section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1998, and any claim in respect of unauthorised deductions from wages under section 23(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1998, again finding that time should not be extended. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Struck out as out of time under section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010; tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out as out of time under section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010; tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as out of time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1998 as stated in the judgment; tribunal found it was not appropriate to extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Any complaint of detriment in respect of protected disclosures was struck out under section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1998 as stated in the judgment, with no extension of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Any claim in respect of unauthorised deductions from wages was struck out under section 23(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1998 as stated in the judgment, with no extension of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- not just and equitable to extend time
- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1998
- not appropriate to extend time
- section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1998
- section 23(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1998
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.