Case 6000096/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A S A Rashid v The Sheffield College — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000096/2023
- Decision date
- 11 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A S A Rashid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing judgment on 11 August 2023 before Employment Judge JM Wade. The tribunal dealt with a trade union detriment complaint and the claimant’s Equality Act complaints. The trade union detriment complaint was struck out on limitation grounds.
The tribunal held there were no reasonable prospects of the claimant showing that it was not reasonably practicable for the trade union detriment claim to have been presented in time. By contrast, the Equality Act complaints were allowed to proceed to final hearing because the claimant’s case on time limits was described as arguable and not such that the tribunal could say there were little reasonable prospects of persuading a tribunal to grant an extension of time, after hearing all the evidence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The claimant’s trade union detriment complaint was struck out because there were no reasonable prospects of showing that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment says the claimant’s Equality Act complaints proceed to final hearing. The tribunal found the time-limit case arguable and not such that it could say there were little reasonable prospects of persuading a tribunal to grant an extension of time. | Other | — | — |
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.