Case 3332654/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Smith, Counsel (FRU) For the v Ms A Esmail, Solicitor Interpreter: Ms S Butcher, Turkish speaking interpreter — 2020
- Case reference
- 3332654/2018
- Decision date
- 5 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Members
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr C Davie, Mr T Chinnery
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Smith, Counsel (FRU) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Mr H Erguven’s unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because he did not have sufficient qualifying service. The judgment records that the complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal also stated that the Claimant’s complaints that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed were not well founded.
The tribunal further found that the Claimant’s complaints of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race and religion were presented out of time. It decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and accordingly dismissed those complaints. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the Claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service. The tribunal also found the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint was presented out of time and the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The complaint was presented out of time and the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.