Case 1304314/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ahmed Nooh v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1304314/2020
- Decision date
- 30 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ahmed Nooh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Camp at Midlands (West) on 30 July 2020, heard in public by video. The Tribunal recorded that the only claims before it were breach of contract, direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination, direct religious discrimination, and harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The Tribunal found that all of the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospects of success and struck them out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing. No remedy was awarded because all claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | Claim pleaded as harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.