Case 6008434/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Raffell, legal representative For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008434/2024
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Raffell, legal representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 23 December 2024 at London Central by Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints included unfair (constructive) dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and failure to provide itemised pay statements, together with claims of direct discrimination because of religion and harassment related to religion and race.
The tribunal held that the unfair (constructive) dismissal complaint, the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint, and the complaint under s.8 ERA 1996 for failure to provide itemised pay statements were not presented within the applicable time limit. For those complaints, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so, and dismissed them.
The tribunal also held that the direct discrimination because of religion complaint, the harassment related to religion complaint, and the harassment related to race complaint were not presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit for those claims, and dismissed them.
As a result, the claimant's entire claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The judgment records no substantive liability findings and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under s.8 ERA 1996 for failure to provide itemised pay statements. Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination because of religion. Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to religion. Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race. Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- not 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.