Case 2218125/2024 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Haziz Rahim (2) ABC (3) Tanaz Anwar Shah Khan v Secretary of State for Defence and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 2218125/2024
Decision date: 16 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge B Smith
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

(1) Haziz Rahim (2) ABC (3) Tanaz Anwar Shah Khan

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants brought complaints of race discrimination, post-employment victimisation for bringing legal proceedings, and detriment for making a qualified disclosure. The claims related to the rejection of the first claimant's application under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, and the respondents applied to strike them out.

The Tribunal found there was no proper basis on which the claimants were employees or workers of the respondents, or on which the claims arose from employment or work with those respondents. It also found no proper basis for an agency, contractor, third-party influence, or territorial connection sufficient to bring the claims within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and were an abuse of process, noting the context of the claimant's other proceedings and existing claims against other potential respondents. The claims were therefore struck out.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The judgment records complaints of race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The claims were struck out because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction, alternatively no reasonable prospect of success, alternatively abuse of process.	Struck out	Race	—
Victimisation	The judgment records post-employment victimisation claims for bringing legal proceedings under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The claims were struck out because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction, alternatively no reasonable prospect of success, alternatively abuse of process.	Struck out	—	—
Whistleblowing	The judgment records detriment claims for making a qualified disclosure under section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996. The claims were struck out because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction, alternatively no reasonable prospect of success, alternatively abuse of process.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

8 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.

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.