Case 3310917/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ayyaz Mahmood v Peterborough City Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 3310917/2020
- Decision date
- 19 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ayyaz Mahmood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing conducted remotely by CVP before Employment Judge Postle. The claimant resigned on 15 January 2020. ACAS Early Conciliation began on 21 July 2020, the certificate was issued on 14 August 2020, and the claim was presented on 19 August 2020.
The Tribunal held that the claimant’s Employment Rights Act 1996 claims were out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable to have presented those claims within the three-month time limit, subject to any ACAS Early Conciliation extension period.
The Tribunal also held that the Equality Act 2010 disability claims were out of time. It declined to extend time on the just and equitable basis, stating that there were no grounds for doing so. No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Employment Rights Act 1996 claim(s) were found out of time. The judgment does not specify the underlying ERA cause(s), but the Tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present them within the three-month period subject to the ACAS Early Conciliation extension. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Equality Act 2010 disability claim(s) were found out of time. The Tribunal declined to extend time on the just and equitable basis because it found there were no grounds to do so. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable principle
- ACAS Early Conciliation extension period
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.