Case 6000043/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mashapuri v The Department of Health and Social Care — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000043/2022
- Decision date
- 8 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mashapuri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing in Leeds on 8 March 2023, before Employment Judge JM Wade, the tribunal dealt only with limitation. It found it was reasonably practicable for Mr Mashapuri to have presented his unfair dismissal complaint by 16 July 2022. Because that claim was not presented until 23 September 2022, the tribunal held it could not consider it and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint as out of time.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's Equality Act complaints for limitation reasons. It was not satisfied that it would be just and equitable to extend time in all the circumstances. The extracted text records the relevant date as 16 July 2023; that date is preserved as extracted. No remedy was awarded because the claims were dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented on 23 September 2022; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present by 16 July 2022 and dismissed it as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers only to 'Equality Act complaints' and does not specify the protected characteristic in the extracted text. It dismissed those complaints for limitation reasons; the extracted text records the just-and-equitable date as 16 July 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.