Case 6005896/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohammed Mudashiru v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005896/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohammed Mudashiru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant's claims had been brought in time and, if not, whether time should be extended. The claimant had been dismissed on 21 February 2024, appealed, and received the appeal outcome on 19 June 2024. He notified Acas on 27 June 2024, received the Acas certificate on 16 July 2024, and presented his claim that day.
The tribunal found that the claimant had sought advice after dismissal and had been advised to wait for the internal appeal outcome before going to tribunal. The tribunal accepted that, in the circumstances, the claimant's ignorance of the specific time limit was reasonable and that he acted reasonably in waiting for the appeal process to conclude. The tribunal also noted the seven-week delay between the appeal hearing and the appeal outcome letter, during which the primary limitation period expired.
The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal claim in time and that it was presented within a reasonable time thereafter. For the same reasons, it held that it was just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment claims. The decision was limited to jurisdiction and did not decide the merits of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing decision on time limits only. The tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and it was presented within a reasonable time thereafter; the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing decision on time limits only. The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds for the disability discrimination claim; the merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing decision on time limits only. The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds for the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim; the merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing decision on time limits only. The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds for the harassment claim; the merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
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.