Outcome
Individual claims
Complaint not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of TUPE not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. Tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Complaints not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal determined it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Complaints not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal determined it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Complaints not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal determined it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Complaints of harassment related to disability not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal determined it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
Complaints of victimisation not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal determined it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Facts
Mr Lasoju brought claims against XMA Ltd including unfair dismissal (including automatic unfair dismissal by reason of TUPE), race discrimination, disability discrimination, age discrimination, harassment related to disability, and victimisation. This was a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction based on time limits.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims on jurisdictional grounds. For the unfair dismissal claims, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. For all discrimination claims, the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
Practical note
Claimants must strictly comply with time limits; tribunals will dismiss claims presented out of time unless the claimant can demonstrate it was not reasonably practicable (for unfair dismissal) or that it is just and equitable (for discrimination) to extend time.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 3302932/2024
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- XMA Ltd
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister