Case 6009542/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. FAZIA HASANALLI DAMANI v Zest Care Homes Limited Held At: Birmingham, Remotely by Cvp — 2024
- Case reference
- 6009542/2024
- Decision date
- 26 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. FAZIA HASANALLI DAMANI
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Fazia Hasanalli Damani brought a claim against Zest Care Homes Limited, with the effective date of termination stated as 13 March 2024 and the claim presented on 26 August 2024. The hearing before Employment Judge Manley on 7 January 2025 was limited to whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim despite the time limit issue.
The tribunal was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim before the end of the three-month period from the effective date of termination. It was also satisfied that the claim, although presented on 26 August 2024, was brought within a period that was reasonable in all the circumstances. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction and that the claim could proceed to a final hearing. No substantive liability or remedy decision was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary jurisdiction decision only. The tribunal found the claim was presented out of time but accepted that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within three months and that the claim was lodged within a reasonable period in all the circumstances. No merits decision was made. | Other | — | — |
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.