Case 3305828/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr MD Hafiz Al Ashraf v Marcus and Marcus Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305828/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr MD Hafiz Al Ashraf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Al Ashraf was employed by Marcus and Marcus Ltd as a support worker from 7 December 2018 and was summarily dismissed with an effective date of termination of 6 June 2022. He presented his tribunal claim on 24 May 2023 after starting ACAS early conciliation on 23 April 2023 and receiving the certificate on 3 May 2023. The tribunal identified the primary limitation date for unfair dismissal as midnight on 5 September 2022, and treated the last pleaded discriminatory act as the refusal of time off for Eid on or about 1 May 2022.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. It rejected the claimant's reliance on ignorance of the law and time limits, depression and stress, housing and family difficulties, and his belief that he had to wait for the outcome of his appeal or grievance. The tribunal found there was no barrier to seeking advice or making enquiries earlier, noted that he could have researched the position himself or contacted ACAS, and held that an internal appeal did not itself make it not reasonably practicable to present a tribunal claim in time.
On discrimination, the tribunal held that the race and religion complaint was also out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It found the delay to be lengthy, accepted that the claimant had a difficult period personally but did not regard those circumstances as a cogent explanation for the delay, and noted that he did not issue the claim promptly even after the ACAS certificate was issued. The tribunal also considered the effect of delay on the cogency of evidence and concluded that it was not persuaded to exercise its discretion, so the discrimination complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary limitation period and therefore dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Part of the claimant's out-of-time discrimination complaint. The tribunal treated the race and religion allegations together and refused to extend time because it was not just and equitable to do so. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Part of the claimant's out-of-time discrimination complaint. The tribunal treated the race and religion allegations together and refused to extend time because it was not just and equitable to do so. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch
- Cygnet Behavioral Health Ltd v Britton
- John Lewis Partnership v Charman
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.