Case 1304640/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Ahmed v Amey Services Limited — 2024

Case reference: 1304640/2021
Decision date: 21 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Edmonds
Panel members: Mrs S Ray, Mrs E Shenton

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Ahmed

Respondent

Amey Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Birmingham by CVP on 20 and 21 May 2024 before Employment Judge Edmonds, Mrs S Ray and Mrs E Shenton. Mr M Ahmed appeared in person and Amey Services Ltd was represented by counsel. The tribunal gave its judgment orally at the hearing and recorded it in writing on 21 May 2024.

The tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct race discrimination. It also dismissed the complaint of direct discrimination because of religion or belief, finding that claim not well-founded. No further factual detail or reasoning is set out in the written record beyond those outcomes.

For the avoidance of doubt, the claimant confirmed that he had not intended to bring claims for equal pay, sex discrimination and unauthorised deductions from wages. To the extent that those matters were referenced in the claim form, the tribunal dismissed them. The written record does not record any monetary award or other remedy.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The tribunal found the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The tribunal found the complaint of direct discrimination because of religion or belief was not well-founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Equal pay	The claimant confirmed he had not intended to bring an equal pay claim, but to the extent it was referenced in the claim form, it was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Sex discrimination	The claimant confirmed he had not intended to bring a sex discrimination claim, but to the extent it was referenced in the claim form, it was dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claimant confirmed he had not intended to bring a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages, but to the extent it was referenced in the claim form, it was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.