Case 3332231/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Anis Ali - Ex-colleague For the v Mr Tom Kirk - Counsel — 2018

Case reference: 3332231/2018
Decision date: 8 July 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Henry Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Anis Ali - Ex-colleague For the

Respondent

Mr Tom Kirk - Counsel

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 12 July 2019, Employment Judge Henry considered whether Miss D Rawat’s sex discrimination complaint against Mr Davinder Hare and Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd had been presented in time and, if not, whether it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The complaint concerned allegations that Mr Hare changed her name badge from Rawat to Ali around 20 August 2016, spread or contributed to rumours that she was in a relationship with Mr Ali, and referred to her as 'trouble' after an incident in September 2016.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the sex discrimination complaint was presented out of time if measured from the acts complained of, but exercised its discretion under s.123 Equality Act 2010 to extend time and held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. Merits were not decided in this judgment. The claim concerned allegations about a changed name badge, rumours about a relationship with Mr Ali, and being called 'trouble' after an incident in September 2016; the judgment refers to the relevant email as dated 5 November 2016 and also uses 11 November 2016 in the limitation analysis.	Other	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.