Case 4112339/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Al Manasrah v Scottish Court and Tribunals Service — 2020
- Case reference
- 4112339/2019
- Decision date
- 28 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Al Manasrah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O Al Manasrah resigned from his employment with the Scottish Court and Tribunals Service on 11 January 2019, later sought to withdraw that resignation, applied for reappointment on 27 February 2019, and his employment ended on 28 February 2019. His request for reappointment was refused on 15 May 2019. He lodged claims for race discrimination and unfair dismissal on 7 November 2019, which was outside the normal three-month time limits.
On the unfair dismissal complaint, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant had mental health difficulties and housing problems during the relevant period, but held that it was nevertheless reasonably practicable for him to present a claim in time. It noted that he was employed as a court officer, was aware by June or July 2019 that the claim was already out of time, and could have taken steps to clarify the position sooner. The Tribunal also found that the further delay until November was not reasonable.
The Tribunal went on to say that, if it had had jurisdiction, it would in any event have struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37 because the claimant had resigned, tried to withdraw his resignation, applied for reappointment, and sought re-engagement as a remedy. The Tribunal accepted that the claim as advanced could be read as a constructive dismissal case, but held that those facts were inconsistent with a claim that the employment relationship had broken down in the way alleged.
On the race discrimination complaint, the Tribunal applied the just and equitable time extension discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and declined to extend time. It took account of the claimant’s reasons for delay, including his mental health, accommodation issues and geography, but found the length of delay significant, found that he had worked and volunteered during the period, and accepted the respondent’s submission that the case was not properly particularised and that late amendment attempts would prejudice its ability to defend the claim. The Tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal complaint within the three-month time limit and that he did not do so. In the alternative, it held the claim would have been struck out because the claimant had resigned, sought to withdraw his resignation, applied for reappointment, and sought re-engagement as a remedy, which was inconsistent with a constructive dismissal case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for the race discrimination complaint. It accepted that the claimant had mental health and housing difficulties, but found the delay was too long, that he knew the claim was out of time by June or July 2019, that he had taken advice yet still delayed until 7 November 2019, and that the respondent would be prejudiced by the lateness and lack of particularisation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable test
- Rule 37 strike out
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
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.