Case 2216635/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hirsi v H.H. Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216635/2023
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde
- Panel members
- Ms J Marshall, Ms T Shaah
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hirsi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent applied a PCP requiring employees to routinely work full time from the office rather than from home. It found that this placed the Claimant, who had Crohn's disease and COVID-19 risk concerns, at a substantial and particular disadvantage. The Tribunal found that the pleaded advance-notice PCP was not proven.
The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded because the respondent had not engaged with the flexible working request and no adjustment was offered for approximately 16 months. The Tribunal found that allowing routine home working for three days per week would have been a reasonable step during the relevant period, but that the respondent's proposal on 8 December 2023 would have avoided the disadvantages and ended the period of disadvantage.
The victimisation complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that the delayed communication about the loan request was an oversight, not a victimising act, and found no connection between the protected acts and ERP access decisions; it also accepted evidence that the Claimant had not suffered detriment from the ERP access allocation.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination succeeded in respect of PCP 1, requiring all employees to routinely work full time from the office rather than from home. PCP 2, requiring advance notice before working from home, was not proven. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability succeeded. The Tribunal found a failure from 15 February 2022 to 8 December 2023 in respect of allowing the Claimant to work from home based on COVID-19 related disadvantage and Crohn's disease-related disadvantage. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegations concerning delay in responding to a loan request and restricted ERP access were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Section 123 EqA 2010
- Section 20 EqA 2010
- Ishola v Transport for London [2020] ICR 1204
- Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust v Bagley (2012) UKEAT/0417/11/RN
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] IRLR 216
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd [2006] IRLR 664
- Section 27 EqA 2010
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] UKHL 48
- Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11
- s.19 EqA 2010
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.