Case 1305012/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ahsan v Ministry of Defence — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305012/2020
- Decision date
- 22 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Panel members
- Mr K Palmer, Mr R Virdee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ahsan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered complaints from two claim forms concerning harassment related to race and/or religion, victimisation, direct philosophical belief discrimination, and protected disclosure detriment. A number of complaints were withdrawn during the hearing and were dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal dismissed the remaining harassment, victimisation, direct belief discrimination, and protected disclosure detriment complaints. In its concluding reasons, it found that none of the complaints succeeded, that it was unnecessary to determine time limits, and that the Respondent's explanations were not influenced by protected acts or any belief about them.
No remedy was awarded because all live complaints failed or were dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment complaints numbered 1, 14, 23, 24, 34 to 40 and 42 to 45 were dismissed. The issues identified harassment related to race and/or religion. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaints numbered 1, 14, 23, 24, 34 to 40 and 42 to 45 were dismissed. The issues identified harassment related to race and/or religion. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints numbered 51, 52, 54, 56, 59, 61, 62, 72, 78, and 92 to 94 were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination complaints numbered 92 and 93 concerned philosophical belief and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaints numbered 88 to 91 were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaints numbered 2 to 13, 15 to 22, 25 to 33, 41, 46 to 50, 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 63 to 71, 73 to 77 and 79 were dismissed on withdrawal. The prompt text does not identify each withdrawn complaint's claim type. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 40 Equality Act 2010
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 10 Equality Act 2010
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.