Case 2217090/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Hasan v University College London — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217090/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Hasan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote preliminary hearing on 5 July 2024 before Employment Judge B Smith sitting alone, the tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claims as scandalous or vexatious. The hearing was limited to strike-out issues and did not determine liability on any substantive complaint.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's disability discrimination claim, which was framed as direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and indirect disability discrimination, under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. It also struck out the protected disclosure detriment claim on the same basis.
The tribunal refused to strike out the victimisation claim, so that claim was not disposed of in this judgment. It separately struck out the claim that the claimant suffered a detriment because he asked for a pay increase in 2016, which the reasons described as potentially a protected act, victimisation, or otherwise, again under Rule 37(1)(a) for no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim covered direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and indirect disability discrimination. It was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim of protected disclosure detriment. It was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal refused the application to strike out this victimisation claim. The judgment does not finally dispose of the underlying claim on the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claim that the claimant suffered a detriment because he asked for a pay increase in 2016, described by the tribunal as potentially a protected act, victimisation, or otherwise. It was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.