Case 2302207/2018 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr H Robson solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302207/2018
- Decision date
- 29 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Truscott QC on 29 January 2020 in the case of Mr M A Ali v Ramboll UK Limited & Ors. The hearing was listed principally to consider the claimant’s application to postpone the hearing listed for 20 April 2020 and the six subsequent days because it would fall during Ramadan. The claimant explained that he would be fasting and that his water intake would be limited, which would affect his ability to conduct the hearing. The respondent did not seriously oppose the application, and the Tribunal granted it.
As a result, the hearing was postponed and relisted for 21 to 29 January 2021. The Tribunal also varied earlier case management orders dated 25 February 2019. Disclosure of documents was extended to 10 June 2020, the list of issues dates were varied to 22 and 29 July 2020 respectively, the bundle preparation date was varied to 7 October 2020, and exchange of witness statements was varied to 25 November 2020. The bundles were to be provided by the respondent.
No other matters required to be addressed at the hearing. The judgment does not determine the substantive discrimination, unfair dismissal or unlawful deduction claims, and it records no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This was an open preliminary hearing dealing with an application to postpone the April 2020 hearing because of Ramadan and related case management matters. The judgment did not adjudicate the substantive employment claims. | Other | — | — |
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.