Case 3314881/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hassan v Mr J Callis and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314881/2020
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reindorf
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr M Hassan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard Mr M Hassan's claims against Mr J Callis, Mr G Jackson and FAAC Entrance Solutions UK on 16 March 2022, with Employment Judge Reindorf sitting alone. It decided that the race discrimination claim and the religion and belief discrimination claim against all three Respondents had been presented outside the relevant time limit. The Tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it did not have jurisdiction to determine those claims.
The Tribunal also dealt with a breach of contract claim against the Third Respondent. It struck that claim out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim against the First, Second and Third Respondents was presented outside the time limit. The Tribunal refused to extend time as just and equitable and held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the claim. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim against the First, Second and Third Respondents was presented outside the time limit. The Tribunal refused to extend time as just and equitable and held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the claim. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim against the Third Respondent was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.