Case 3309183/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Muhammad Raheel Bashir v Splendid Restaurants (Colonel) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309183/2022
- Decision date
- 26 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Muhammad Raheel Bashir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMuhammad Raheel Bashir was employed by Splendid Restaurants (Colonel) Ltd from 8 June 2011 and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 18 March 2022. He pursued an internal appeal, which was unsuccessful, and the appeal outcome letter was dated 20 May 2022. ACAS conciliation began on 5 July 2022, the certificate was issued on 7 July 2022, and the ET1 was presented on 7 July 2022. The claimant accepted that the unfair dismissal claim was not brought within the three-month time limit and relied on the appeal process, his family circumstances, his own illness and his father's death, and ignorance of tribunal procedure as reasons why it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim sooner.
The tribunal applied the time-limit test under section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, and referred to Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority, Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, and Porter v Bandridge Ltd. It accepted, for the purposes of the hearing, the claimant's evidence about his father's death, his own Covid illness, his return to the UK on 1 December 2021, and his wife's stillbirth in late May or early June 2022, but found that none of these matters explained why the claim could not have been presented in time. The tribunal found there was a significant period during which the claim could have been brought, and that there was no clear evidence that the appeal process prevented a claim being filed within the relevant period. It also found that the claimant's ignorance of tribunal procedure was not shown to be reasonable, noting that he had used ACAS conciliation and submitted the claim online with a friend's help, and that he had a relatively senior role and some knowledge of disciplinary procedures. The claim was therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented within the time limit and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
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.