Case 2202029/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ousman Ahmad v The Metanoia Institute RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2202029/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ousman Ahmad
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether several allegations should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The judge took the claimant's case at its highest and considered the legal requirements for protected acts, indirect discrimination, protected disclosures, unlawful deduction from wages, and strike-out.
The tribunal struck out the 27 February 2024 protected act allegation, all indirect religious discrimination allegations, the alleged 13 July 2023 protected disclosure, and the wages claim, finding that they had no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal found, among other things, that the indirect religious discrimination allegations did not identify evidence of group disadvantage, the 13 July 2023 email did not meet the requirements of s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996, and the claimant did not point to a contractual term entitling him to payment for sending emails about matters such as a grievance.
The claimant withdrew one alleged protected act allegation and one alleged protected disclosure allegation, and those allegations were dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary-hearing judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal struck out the allegation that the claimant made a s.27 Equality Act 2010 protected act on 27 February 2024 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant withdrew the allegation identified as protected act 8, and it was dismissed on withdrawal. The extracted text is truncated around part of the victimisation reasoning. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | All allegations of indirect religious discrimination were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal struck out the allegation that an email dated 13 July 2023 amounted to a protected disclosure under s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant withdrew the allegation that he made a protected disclosure in his 17 November 2024 email to Marc Ramsbottom at Peninsula; it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 38
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College UKEAT/0343/10
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd UKEAT/0119/18
- Cox v Adecco and others EAT/0339/19
- Bahad v HSBC Bank plc [2022] EAT 83
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA EAT [2016]
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.