Case 2201565/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Sykes, advocate For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 2201565/2021
Decision date: 8 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Joffe

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr J Sykes, advocate For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At this open preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Joffe considered the respondents’ applications under rule 37 and rule 39 to strike out parts of Ms Ahmed’s sex, race and protected disclosure claims, or alternatively to order deposits. The judge applied the usual cautious approach for discrimination and whistleblowing cases, citing the need to take the claimant’s case at its highest and avoid a mini-trial where the key facts were disputed. The applications were refused in full.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination allegations, including allegations about the treatment of other female staff, the lateness warning/comparator point, and the handling of complaints and grievance, were not struck out and no deposit order was made. The judgment did not finally determine the merits.	Other	Sex	—
Harassment	Sex-related harassment allegations about sexualised remarks, unwanted proximity or touching, and conduct affecting the claimant and other female staff were allowed to proceed. The tribunal held that conduct directed at other employees could still be relevant in context.	Other	Sex	—
Constructive dismissal	Constructive dismissal was pleaded as arising from the respondent’s handling of the complaints, grievance and later disciplinary action. The strike-out and deposit-order applications were refused, but the judgment did not decide the merits.	Other	—	—
Victimisation	Victimisation allegations formed part of the claimant’s first claim and were left to proceed. The judgment did not separately determine the merits, only refusing strike-out and deposit-order relief.	Other	—	—
Race discrimination	Race discrimination allegations about the right-to-work dispute, the reference to 'visa issues', the comments about the claimant’s name and appearance, and the 'international pharmacist' remark were not struck out. The tribunal said the allegations were too fact-sensitive for summary disposal.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

16 references

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.