Case 1800966/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ahmed v Unilever UK Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800966/2020
- Decision date
- 8 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote preliminary hearing on 3 July 2020, Employment Judge Rogerson recorded that Mr A Ahmed's claim against Unilever UK Ltd was presented in time. In the alternative, the tribunal extended time to the date of presentation on just and equitable grounds.
The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be issued unless requested within 14 days. The decision does not record any merits findings on the underlying race and religion or belief discrimination complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary limitation decision only; the tribunal recorded that the claim was presented in time and, alternatively, extended time to the date of presentation on just and equitable grounds. The judgment does not separate out merits findings for this head. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary limitation decision only; the tribunal recorded that the claim was presented in time and, alternatively, extended time to the date of presentation on just and equitable grounds. The judgment does not separate out merits findings for this head. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable grounds
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.