Case 3314040/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Yassine v Alaraby Television Network Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314040/2019
- Decision date
- 15 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Yassine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Postle sitting alone at Norwich by CVP on 10 August 2020. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal later issued its written record on 15 September 2020 and noted that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because it was out of time. The tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The claimant’s Equality Act 2010 claims for religious discrimination were also dismissed as out of time. The tribunal recorded that nothing had been advanced to justify extending time on the just and equitable principle, and so those claims were likewise outside jurisdiction.
No liability findings on the merits or remedy awards were made because all claims were dismissed on limitation and jurisdiction grounds.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have issued the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The Equality Act 2010 religious discrimination claims were found to be out of time. The tribunal said nothing had been advanced to justify extending time on the just and equitable basis, so the claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable principle
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.