Case 1302114/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Hafeez Ahmed v Department for Work and Pensions HELD AT: Birmingham — 2023

Case reference: 1302114/2022
Decision date: 24 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Kelly

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Hafeez Ahmed

Respondent

Department for Work and Pensions HELD AT: Birmingham

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal determined a preliminary issue concerning whether the claimant was a disabled person by reason of depression during the agreed relevant period of 22 to 25 September 2020. The respondent accepted that the claimant's PNH met the statutory definition of disability, but did not accept that depression was a separate disability at that time.

Employment Judge Kelly considered the claimant's disability impact statement, occupational health material, absence records, and the absence of medical or expert evidence directed to depression during the relevant period. The tribunal noted overlap between symptoms said to arise from PNH and depression, and found that the claimant had not shown that he had a separate disability by reason of depression during the relevant period.

The decision did not determine the merits of the remaining claims, the respondent's knowledge, or any remedy. It was limited to the preliminary issue of disability status in relation to depression.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary issue only: the tribunal determined that the claimant was not disabled by reason of depression during the relevant period, 22 to 25 September 2020. The judgment records that PNH was accepted as a disability, but this decision did not determine the substantive discrimination claims.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.