Case 6019288/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Nawaz v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019288/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Nawaz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff by video on 10 June 2025 before Employment Judge Cawthray. The claimant, Mr A Nawaz, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written record states that the reasons for the judgment had been given orally at the hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it had no jurisdiction to hear a complaint of unfair dismissal by a former police officer. No merits determination is recorded on that claim.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments. It found that the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear a complaint of unfair dismissal by a former police officer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was presented out of time, and the Tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.