Case 6000127/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Narli v Babcock Integrated Technology Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000127/2023
- Decision date
- 5 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Narli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of discrimination on the grounds of race after his assignment with the respondent ended in August 2022. The respondent argued that the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit, while the claimant relied on later grievance-related events and the circumstances in which he had pursued the matter through Workwell.
The tribunal found that the respondent had no involvement in the grievance process and that the last act by the respondent was on 10 or 11 August 2022, when it required Expleo to terminate the claimant's engagement. On that basis the claim was issued out of time.
The tribunal nevertheless concluded that it was just and equitable to extend time. It took account of the length of delay, the claimant's pursuit of a grievance, advice sought from his union, the absence of material forensic prejudice to the respondent, and the cogency of the claim. The substantive claim was therefore allowed to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary judgment on limitation only. The tribunal found the claim was issued out of time but that it was just and equitable to extend time, so the substantive race discrimination claim proceeds and was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- SCA Packaging v Boyle
- Miller v Ministry of Justice
- Perth and Kinross Council v Townsley
- Hawkins v Ball
- Wright v Wolverhampton City Council
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.
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.