Case 6002588/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z. Zarin v Fischer Future Heat Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002588/2024
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z. Zarin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone found that Mr Z. Zarin was an employee within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also held that whether he was an employee of Fischer Future Heat Ltd or Woodland Installations (UK) Ltd would be determined later, either at another preliminary hearing or at the full merits hearing.
Woodland Installations UK Ltd was joined as a second respondent and the claim form and blank ET3 were ordered to be served on it. The tribunal further found that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had been presented out of time, but that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so the time limit was extended to 19 May 2024 to allow the claim to proceed. The respondent's application for a preparation time order was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time, but extended time so the claim could proceed to a later hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230(1) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.