S Ahmed v Shared Services Connected Limited — 2026

S Ahmed complained that he had suffered harassment related to his Pakistani race and/or his religion of Islam while employed by Shared Services Connected Limited. For the preliminary hearing, the parties agreed that the last act relied upon occurred on 12 May 2025 and was notified to Mr Ahmed on 22 May 2025. He commenced ACAS Early Conciliation on 3 November and presented his claim on 10 November 2025, approximately six months after the last alleged act.

The Tribunal found that Mr Ahmed was aware of the possibility of bringing a claim by early June 2025. It did not accept that he had been prevented by his health from presenting it earlier, noting his evidence that it had been a choice not to bring the claim rather than an inability to do so. It found that the initial ten-day delay arose from his lack of awareness of the last act, but that he thereafter elected not to bring a claim until changing his mind in November 2025.

In considering prejudice, the Tribunal found that the complaints depended on oral testimony from Mr Ahmed and a significant number of alleged perpetrators, some of whom had left the respondent's employment. Because no complaints had been made during his employment, the respondent had not had cause to investigate them at the time, and the passage of time would make investigation more difficult.

Taking Mr Ahmed's pleaded case at its highest, the Tribunal considered that the complaints were not currently stateable and appeared to have little, if any, reasonable prospect of success. Although he believed or suspected that the behaviours were directed at him because of ethnicity and religion, the behaviours were not on their face related to either characteristic, and he had not offered facts from which that connection could reasonably be inferred. The Tribunal identified one possible exception involving a vague allegation against his manager, but found that allegation wholly lacking in specification.

Having considered the length and reason for the delay and the balance of prejudice, the Tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The race-related and religion-related harassment complaints were therefore dismissed as out of time. No monetary remedy was awarded; the figures concerning Mr Ahmed's earnings, savings and debt were findings about his financial circumstances rather than an award.