Case 6017752/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hassan Ajir v Arriva London North Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING to decide a PRELIMINARY ISSUE — 2026
- Case reference
- 6017752/2024
- Decision date
- 12 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hassan Ajir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard by video on 14 October 2025 and 13 November 2025, Employment Judge Boyes sitting alone considered a preliminary issue in Hassan Ajir's unfair dismissal complaint against Arriva London North Limited. The issue was whether the claim had been brought within the statutory time limit.
The tribunal found that the complaint was made outside the primary three-month time limit. It further found that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be made within that primary three-month period.
The tribunal also found that the complaint was presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to deal with the unfair dismissal complaint. No merits decision and no monetary remedy were recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the primary three-month time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within that period and it was presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable. The merits of the dismissal complaint were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable
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.