Case 1402329/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr MQ Ahmed v Beswick Partnership Limited & Others — 2018

Case reference: 1402329/2018
Decision date: 23 July 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Pirani

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr MQ Ahmed

Respondent

Beswick Partnership Limited & Others

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By letter dated 5 July 2018, the tribunal gave Mr MQ Ahmed an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. He responded in writing, stating that he was bringing a claim of constructive unfair dismissal for the purposes of bringing a discrimination claim.

Employment Judge Pirani recorded that the claimant had insufficient service to bring a claim of unfair dismissal. On that basis, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out under rule 37. No remedy was awarded on that complaint.

The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims, including discrimination, remained listed for a telephone case management preliminary hearing on 25 September 2018. The judgment does not determine those claims.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal found the claimant had insufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant's written response said he was bringing 'constructive unfair dismissal for the purposes of bringing a discrimination claim'.	Struck out	—	—

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.