Claimant v Rajeev
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out on jurisdictional grounds as it was presented out of time pursuant to section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The claim was struck out on jurisdictional grounds as it was presented out of time pursuant to section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The claim was struck out on jurisdictional grounds as it was presented out of time pursuant to section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the tribunal found it was not appropriate to extend time.
The claim for detriment in respect of protected disclosures was struck out on jurisdictional grounds as it was out of time pursuant to section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the tribunal found it inappropriate to extend time.
The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was struck out on jurisdictional grounds as it was out of time pursuant to section 23(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the tribunal found it not appropriate to extend time.
Facts
The claimant brought multiple claims against an individual respondent including race and religious discrimination, unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and unauthorised deductions from wages. The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing held remotely by CVP. The respondent was represented by solicitors from Markel Law LLP. The hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's claims on jurisdictional grounds, finding that each claim had been presented outside the applicable statutory time limits and that it was not just and equitable (for discrimination claims) or appropriate (for other claims) to extend time. The claimant was entirely unsuccessful.
Practical note
Non-attendance at a preliminary hearing on jurisdictional issues will not prevent the tribunal from striking out claims that are clearly out of time, particularly where the claimant has not provided reasons why time should be extended.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305602/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Rajeev
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No