Case 6022729/2024 · Employment Tribunal
HABIB MIAH v Morgan Stanley UK Limited and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 6022729/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dowling Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
4 namedClaimant
HABIB MIAH
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a breach of contract claim concerning the withdrawal of an employment offer in 2022. The preliminary hearing considered whether the claim was presented within time and, if not, whether it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time and whether it was then presented within a reasonable further period.
The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time. It noted that he had brought employment tribunal proceedings against the respondents in time about the same events, could have researched the tribunal's breach of contract jurisdiction, and had not shown concealment or misrepresentation that made timely presentation not reasonably feasible.
The tribunal also found that, even if a further-period question arose, the claim was not presented within a reasonable time. The claimant knew the material facts in 2022, had litigated the matter in other proceedings, and the delay was very long relative to the primary time limit. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract claim because it was brought outside the time limit in Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
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.
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.