Case 2305658/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ahmed Ibrahim v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305658/2021
- Decision date
- 18 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Krepski Representation
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ahmed Ibrahim
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned two complaints of discrimination arising from disability brought by Ahmed Ibrahim against St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The complaint about not being offered further shifts from around 4 August 2021 because of the Claimant's email sent on 24 July 2021 was dismissed upon withdrawal.
For the remaining complaint, which concerned cancellation of the Claimant's Occupational Health appointment, Employment Judge Krepski held that it was just and equitable to extend time. The judgment does not record a determination of the merits of that remaining discrimination arising from disability complaint or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability concerning not being offered further shifts from around 4 August 2021 because of the Claimant's email sent on 24 July 2021 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | For the remaining complaint of discrimination arising from disability concerning cancellation of the Claimant's Occupational Health appointment, the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time. The merits outcome is not recorded in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.