Case 6005590/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohammad Rana v Equifax Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6005590/2025
- Decision date
- 20 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Representation
- Venue
- London Central via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohammad Rana
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim relating to his bonus. It found that the claimant had no reasonable prospects of success in establishing that it was not reasonably practicable to submit a timely claim.
The Tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out four claims of unlawful harassment on the basis that they were out of time. It stated that it had not determined whether it would be just and equitable to extend time for those claims, which would be a matter for the Tribunal at the full merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned the claimant's bonus and was struck out because the Tribunal found no reasonable prospects of success in establishing that it was not reasonably practicable to submit a timely claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | The respondent's application to strike out four unlawful harassment claims as out of time was refused, but the Tribunal expressly did not determine whether it would be just and equitable to extend time; that issue was left for the full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospects of success
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.