Case 2403319/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Z Saleh v Viking Consultancy UK Limited and 2 others — 2019

Case reference: 2403319/2018
Decision date: 24 January 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Robinson REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mr Z Saleh

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was an interlocutory judgment, not a merits determination. Employment Judge Robinson found that Mr Z Saleh was an employee of Viking Consultancy UK Limited during the relevant period of his claims. On that basis, he could pursue his race and religious discrimination claims against the first and second respondents, and his unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent, at the final hearing listed for April 2019.

The judgment did not determine liability on any of those claims and made no award. It stated that no further judgment or order was needed, apart from short directions for the future conduct of the proceedings, which were sent separately.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Interlocutory judgment only. The tribunal found the claimant was an employee of Viking Consultancy UK Limited during the relevant period and that he could pursue his race discrimination claim against the first and second respondents at the final hearing.	Other	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Interlocutory judgment only. The tribunal found the claimant was an employee of Viking Consultancy UK Limited during the relevant period and that he could pursue his religious discrimination claim against the first and second respondents at the final hearing.	Other	Religion or belief	—
Unfair dismissal	Interlocutory judgment only. The tribunal found the claimant was an employee of Viking Consultancy UK Limited during the relevant period and that he could pursue his unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent at the final hearing.	Other	—	—

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.