Case 3308884/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Ms A Moseley – Ford, Paralegal. — 2023
- Case reference
- 3308884/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 15 February 2023 at Bury St Edmunds by CVP was listed to decide whether the claims, which appeared to have been presented out of time, should be struck out. Mr O Ibrahim, who appeared in person, said his case included race discrimination in April 2020, but the ET1 contained no particulars and the tribunal recorded that it was not clear what claim was being brought. He had not provided a statement explaining why he considered the claims to be in time, and the respondent had asked for further information in its ET3 grounds of resistance without receiving a response.
The tribunal also noted practical difficulties with the remote hearing: the claimant connected on an iPad and was trying to access the bundle on a mobile phone, and the respondent served the bundle by email at 8.22 am on the morning of the hearing. The judge decided that the matter should be adjourned to an in-person hearing at Watford Employment Tribunal on 30 March 2023. The orders required the respondent to send a hard copy bundle within 7 days and required the claimant to answer the respondent’s further-information request by 8 March 2023, including any information relied on for timeliness or an extension of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant asserted race discrimination in April 2020, but the ET1 gave no particulars and the tribunal recorded that it was not clear what claim was being brought. This hearing did not determine the merits; it adjourned the timeliness/strike-out issue to an in-person hearing. | Other | Race | — |
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.