Case 3311737/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Harpreet Pabla v MBDA (UK) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3311737/2020
- Decision date
- 16 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Harpreet Pabla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Harpreet Pabla was employed by MBDA UK Ltd from September 2015 until 13 April 2020. He resigned on 13 January 2020, worked part of his notice period, and was placed on garden leave on 17 March 2020. At the preliminary hearing, the parties agreed that the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims were out of time; the tribunal set out the statutory time-limit provisions and the authorities relied on, including s.111 ERA 1996, s.207B ERA 1996, s.123 EqA 2010 and s.140B EqA 2010, together with Porter v Bandridge Limited, Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Asda Stores v Kauser, Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council and Cortel Telecom Ltd v Shah.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim in time. It relied on the claimant's own evidence that he knew of the three-month limit, had taken advice from Unite, had a laptop and could file online, and had sufficient information from his data subject access requests by August 2020. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant's asserted depression or COVID-related symptoms prevented a timely claim, noting that no medical evidence had been produced and that he was able to apply for and secure alternative employment within about nine weeks of leaving.
On race discrimination, the tribunal found that the last act relied on was the claimant being placed on garden leave on 17 March 2020. It held that ACAS early conciliation should have started by 16 June 2020, but did not begin until 6 July 2020, and that by the time the claim was presented it was 92 days out of time in total. The tribunal rejected the reasons advanced for delay, including waiting for GDPR material and ill-health, and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claimant's breach of contract claim was withdrawn at the hearing, and the tribunal then reconsidered its earlier rejection of the respondent's breach of contract counterclaim, holding that the rejection had been wrong and that the counterclaim should proceed to a short fast-track hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented within the ordinary time limit, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the race discrimination complaints were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant confirmed that he had brought a breach of contract claim but withdrew it at the hearing; the judgment records that it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's breach of contract counterclaim was initially rejected under rule 12(1)(a), but on reconsideration the tribunal held that rejection was wrong because the claimant had in fact brought a breach of contract claim. The counterclaim was to be served and proceed to a short fast-track hearing, so no merits outcome was reached in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- s.123 EqA 2010
- s.140B EqA 2010
- Porter v Bandridge Limited
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Asda Stores v Kauser
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Cortel Telecom Ltd v Shah
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.