Case 2407359/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Ahmed v National Westminster Bank plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407359/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim after giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why that step should not be taken. The stated reasons were that the claimant had failed to comply with Case Management Orders and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The preliminary hearing listed for 18 May 2022 and the final hearing listed for 23, 24 and 25 January 2023 were vacated.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies disability discrimination; the judgment itself does not distinguish individual claims and states that the claim is struck out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies race discrimination; the judgment itself does not distinguish individual claims and states that the claim is struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing identifies unfair dismissal; the judgment itself does not distinguish individual claims and states that the claim is struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages; the judgment itself does not distinguish individual claims and states that the claim is struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing identifies Working Time Regulations; the judgment itself does not distinguish individual claims and states that the claim is struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.