Speedy Asset Services Ltd

Case Summary

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints due to lack of jurisdiction, time bar, and failure to establish well-founded claims.

The tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the claims, they were filed out of time, and the claimant failed to establish that the complaints had merit on their facts.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •time bar for race discrimination
• •disability status of claimant
• •harassment related to race
• •victimisation
• •wrongful dismissal

- 1 - EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Peter Johnson Respondent: Speedy Asset Services Limited Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (By CVP) On: 17, 18, 19 & 20 December 2024 [In chambers 19 December (PM) & 20 December 2024 (AM)] Before: Employment Judge B Beyzade Members: Mrs B Saund Mr J Webb Representation For the Claimant: Mr Nicholas O’Brien, Counsel For the Respondent: Ms Amany Jabir, Counsel JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The unanimous Judgment of the tribunal is that: 1.1 The Tribunal lacks Jurisdiction, by reason of time bar, to consider the claimant’s complaints of direct race discrimination in terms of section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. It not being just and equitable, in the circumstances presented, to extend time in terms of section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, the complaints of direct race discrimination are dismissed. 1.2 At the material times for the purposes of his complaints of disability discrimination, being complaints of discrimination arising from disability pursuant to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and failure to make reasonable adjustments pursuant to sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act, the claimant was not a person possessing the protected characteristic of disability in terms of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal lacking jurisdiction to consider his complaints of disability discrimination, the same are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. - 2 - 1.3 The claimant’s complaints of harassment related to race pursuant to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 are not well founded and they are hereby dismissed. 1.4 The claimant’s complaints of victimisation pursuant to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 are not well founded …