Case 3310715/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mustafa Najjar v Henry Construction Projects Ltd (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3310715/2021
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mustafa Najjar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mustafa Najjar brought a personal injury claim arising from a workplace accident on 24 November 2017 and a claim of direct discrimination on the grounds of disability under s.13 Equality Act 2010. The hearing was before Employment Judge Tobin, sitting remotely, and the respondent did not attend.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the personal injury claim. It also held that the disability discrimination claim had no merit and dismissed it. In addition, the tribunal found that the discrimination claim had been presented outside the time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that, considering the circumstances, it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The judgment records that proceedings were dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claimant's personal injury claim arising from his workplace accident on 24 November 2017. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 had no merit. It also found the claim was presented outside the time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.