Case 2216692/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ace Ahmed v London Transit Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216692/2023
- Decision date
- 30 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms C Marster, Mr D Shaw
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ace Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central Employment Tribunal by CVP on 10, 11, 12 and 13 December 2024 before Employment Judge Singh, with Ms C Marster and Mr D Shaw as non-legal members. The claimant was represented by Mr J Neckles and the respondent by Mr E Nuttman.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal said to arise because he had engaged in trade union activities or made use of trade union services. It recorded that this claim was not well-founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, again stating that it was not well-founded. In addition, it dismissed the detriment claim based on alleged trade union activities or use of trade union services, with the same finding that it was not well-founded.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract, and no remedy was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Automatic unfair dismissal claim based on trade union activities or use of trade union services was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the ordinary unfair dismissal claim not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | The detriment claim because the claimant had engaged in trade union activities or made use of trade union services was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.