Case 2216936/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Naghdi v C Legal LLP and 7 others — 2025

Case reference: 2216936/2023
Decision date: 9 April 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Heydon REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

9 named

Claimant

Mr A Naghdi

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a public preliminary hearing, the respondent applied to strike out the whole claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal refused that application, holding that it could not decide the fact-sensitive issues without a full fact-finding exercise and that, taking the pleaded facts at their highest, it could not find that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant applied to strike out the response on grounds including alleged non-compliance with disclosure obligations, falsification of evidence and witness intimidation. The tribunal found one breach of the disclosure obligation in relation to how a partially privileged document was handled, and found unreasonable conduct in correspondence with a former employee, but concluded that a fair trial remained possible and that strike out would be disproportionate.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The claimant brought complaints including direct discrimination on grounds of race. The respondent's application to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success was refused; the merits were left for final hearing.	Other	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The claimant brought complaints including direct discrimination on grounds of religion. The respondent's application to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success was refused; the merits were left for final hearing.	Other	Religion or belief	—
Harassment	The claimant brought a harassment complaint. The judgment did not finally determine the complaint; it refused the respondent's strike-out application.	Other	—	—
Victimisation	The claimant brought a victimisation complaint. The judgment did not finally determine the complaint; it refused the respondent's strike-out application.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	The claimant brought protected disclosure detriment complaints. The judgment did not finally determine the complaints; it refused the respondent's strike-out application.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.