Case 1303581/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohamed A M Husain v Rosalind Franklin laboratory and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 1303581/2022
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah Appearances
- Venue
- Remote hearing
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Mohamed A M Husain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote preliminary hearing on 1 June 2023 before Employment Judge Mensah, the tribunal ordered by consent that the claim against Rosalind Franklin Laboratory be withdrawn because it was the wrong party. The tribunal recorded that Blue Arrow Limited was the correct respondent and that the claim against Blue Arrow Limited would proceed.
The tribunal also granted Blue Arrow Limited an extension to present its response to 28 April 2023. It applied the principles in Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain and Moroak (t/a Blake Envelopes) v Cromie, concluding that the delay was caused by circumstances outside Blue Arrow Limited's control, that the response had merit, and that the balance of prejudice favoured granting the extension. The matter then proceeded to case management orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | By consent, the claim against Rosalind Franklin Laboratory was withdrawn because it was the wrong party; Blue Arrow Limited was identified as the correct respondent and the claim against it proceeded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain
- Moroak (t/a Blake Envelopes) v Cromie
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.