Case 4100686/2017 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100686/2017 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on June 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Suhail Hamed v Represented by Mr A McLaughlin Solicitor Circa Security Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100686/2017
- Decision date
- 27 June 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo A.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100686/2017 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on June 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Suhail Hamed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSuhail Hamed presented complaints of race discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal arising out of his dismissal on 5 December 2016. The preliminary hearing was confined to the respondent's limitation argument. The tribunal found that after the claimant contacted ACAS on 2 March 2017, the early conciliation certificate was issued on 2 April 2017, and the statutory time limit was extended under s.207A ERA 1996 so that the relevant deadline became 2 May 2017.
On that calculation, the claim presented on 24 April 2017 was within time. The tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear both claims. Because the claims were found to have been lodged in time, it did not need to decide whether it would have been not reasonably practicable, or just and equitable, to extend time.
The judgment does not determine the merits of either complaint. It directs that the case should proceed to a hearing on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the race discrimination complaint was presented within time and that it had jurisdiction to hear it; the merits were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the dismissal complaint was presented within time and that it had jurisdiction to hear it; the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.207A ERA 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
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.