Case 3315322/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Din v BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315322/2020
- Decision date
- 13 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reindorf KC
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Din
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent and placed with the First Respondent. His ET1 complained of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The disability discrimination claims had previously been clarified as failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20 Equality Act 2010 and discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010.
The preliminary hearing was listed to consider time limits, but the Tribunal first considered the Second Respondent's point that the Claimant had not obtained an ACAS Early Conciliation certificate naming the Second Respondent. The Tribunal found that the Claimant did not provide the prescribed information to ACAS in respect of the Second Respondent, did not obtain an ACAS certificate for it, and did not enter a certificate number relating to it on the claim form.
The Tribunal concluded that the mandatory requirements in s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 had not been met and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the claim against the Second Respondent. It did not strike out under Rule 37(1)(c), but struck out the claim against the Second Respondent under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. The time-limit issue and the claims against the First Respondent were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out only as against the Second Respondent under Rule 37(1)(a) because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction due to non-compliance with ACAS early conciliation requirements in respect of that respondent. Claims against the First Respondent were not determined in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to s.20 Equality Act 2010, struck out only as against the Second Respondent under Rule 37(1)(a) because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction due to non-compliance with ACAS early conciliation requirements in respect of that respondent. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability contrary to s.15 Equality Act 2010, struck out only as against the Second Respondent under Rule 37(1)(a) because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction due to non-compliance with ACAS early conciliation requirements in respect of that respondent. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 27 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 6 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 12 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Sainsburys v Maria Clarke and others 2023 EWCA Civ 386
- Cranwell v Cullen UKEATPAS/0046/14/SM
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.