Case 3316067/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms A Esmail (Solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3316067/2021
- Decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Abbas Alharazi, was employed by Mercedes Benz Retail Group Ltd from 23 September 2020 as a Sales Executive – New Cars at the Colindale outlet. His employment ended on 19 May 2021 during probation, and his appeal against dismissal was heard on 23 June 2021 and dismissed by letter dated 12 July 2021. The tribunal recorded that he said the dismissal was unfair and also racially discriminatory, and that he described himself as a British-born Arab.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service. The tribunal also noted that a possible section 103A ERA 1996 protected-disclosure point was not pleaded in the ET1, no amendment was made, and it would not in any event have been allowed because it was significantly out of time and the matters appeared personal rather than in the public interest. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as presented 17 days outside the primary limitation period. The tribunal found there was no reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- two years' continuous service
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough v Afolabi
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Apleogun-Gabriel v London Borough of Lambeth
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.