Claimant v Bank of China (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. In the alternative, even on the merits, the tribunal found the complaint was not well-founded.
The tribunal found that at the relevant times the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of dyslexia with ADHD characteristics, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, or anxiety. The complaint was therefore not well-founded.
The complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. In the alternative, even on the merits, the tribunal found the complaint was not well-founded.
The tribunal found the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and dismissed it.
Facts
Mr Tandi brought claims against Bank of China (UK) Limited alleging direct race discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation. The claimant asserted he had dyslexia with ADHD characteristics, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, and anxiety. The case was heard remotely over three days with the claimant representing himself and the respondent represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The race discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed as out of time, with the tribunal finding it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The indirect disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010. The victimisation claim was found not well-founded.
Practical note
Claimants must be aware of strict time limits for discrimination claims and tribunals will not extend time unless just and equitable; establishing disability status requires meeting the statutory definition under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2219384/2024
- Decision date
- 9 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No