Case 6000568/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Hamid Reza-Alikhani v Uber Britannia Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000568/2023
- Decision date
- 9 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Hamid Reza-Alikhani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Hamid Reza-Alikhani brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination on grounds of age, race and religion or belief against Uber Britannia Limited. The Tribunal recorded that the claims all related to the termination of the working relationship, which it found ended on 30 September 2022 when the Claimant's Uber App account was deactivated and the Respondent confirmed termination of the driver terms. The Tribunal found that any claim had to be brought by 29 December 2022, but the Claimant did not contact ACAS until 13 February 2023 and presented his ET1 on 30 March 2023.
For unfair dismissal, Employment Judge Hutchinson applied section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had tried to obtain legal advice and referred to a short illness and the Christmas period, but found that these matters did not prevent him from investigating or pursuing the claim, contacting ACAS, or presenting a claim within time. The Tribunal held that the Claimant had not established that timely presentation was not reasonably practicable, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
For the discrimination claims, the Tribunal applied section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time. It found there had been a significant delay with no good reason. It also found the discrimination claims were weak because, apart from ticking the relevant boxes on the ET1, the Claimant had not provided facts supporting discrimination on any ground; contemporaneous material did not refer to discrimination and the stated reason for termination related to the standard of his driving. The Tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed the age, race and religion or belief discrimination claims.
No remedy was awarded because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them at the preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at an open preliminary hearing because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was presented out of time and the Claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the three-month limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The only alleged discriminatory act was the termination/deactivation, and the Claimant had not particularised facts supporting discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The only alleged discriminatory act was the termination/deactivation, and the Claimant had not particularised facts supporting discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The only alleged discriminatory act was the termination/deactivation, and the Claimant had not particularised facts supporting discrimination. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bainbridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores v Kauser
- Trust House Forte (UK) Ltd v Holstead
- Roberston v Bexley Community Centre T/A Leisure Link
- Adelodji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- University of Westminster v Bailey
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
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.