Case 2305696/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hasan Ahmad v ABM Facility Services UK Ltd (sued as “ABM”) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305696/2021
- Decision date
- 28 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Apted Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hasan Ahmad
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed for an open preliminary hearing. By consent, the respondent's name was amended to ABM Facility Services UK Limited.
The claimant's application to amend his claim to add breach of contract was refused. The Tribunal stated it did not have jurisdiction because the proposed claim did not arise at the effective date of termination.
The respondent's applications to strike out the unfair dismissal claim and for a deposit order were refused. The judgment then set out varied case management orders leading to a final hearing on 14 October 2022 and required the respondent to provide a List of Issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's application to amend the claim to add breach of contract was refused because the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction as the claim did not arise at the effective date of termination. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's applications to strike out the unfair dismissal claim and for a deposit order were refused; the substantive unfair dismissal claim was not finally determined in this judgment. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.