Case 6001358/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bismillah v Department of Work and Pensions Heard by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001358/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bismillah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rostant heard the case by CVP on 4 March 2024. The extracted judgment deals only with limitation. It records that the claimant’s race discrimination and religion discrimination claims were brought out of time and that time was not extended for either claim, so they could not proceed.
The tribunal also found that the disability discrimination claim was brought out of time, but on that claim it considered it just and equitable to extend time and allowed the claim to proceed. The extracted text does not include any substantive findings on the merits of the disability claim or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found this claim was brought out of time and refused to extend time to permit it to proceed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found this claim was brought out of time and refused to extend time to permit it to proceed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found this claim was brought out of time but decided it was just and equitable to extend time and permit it to proceed. No merits decision is recorded in the extracted text. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of time
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.