Case 3326200/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Asfedai, Lay Representative For the v Ms K Docherty, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 3326200/2019
- Decision date
- 20 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Asfedai, Lay Representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing by telephone at Watford on 20 July 2020 before Employment Judge Bedeau. The claimant was represented by Mr Y Asfedai and the respondent by Ms K Docherty, Solicitor.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim. It found that it was reasonably practicable for that claim to have been presented in time, and on that basis the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine it.
The tribunal also struck out the age discrimination and race discrimination claims. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims, and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine them.
No compensation or other monetary award was recorded in the judgment. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been presented in time, so it was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time for the age discrimination claim, so it was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time for the race discrimination claim, so it was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.