Case 2408011/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mulla v Darul Uloom Al Arabiya Al Islamia and 4 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408011/2021
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
Parties
6 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard on 20 September 2022 and issued on 22 November 2022, this reserved judgment resolved the respondents' strike-out and/or deposit-order application rather than the merits. The claimant pleaded protected disclosures about the alleged illegal appointment of trustees, health and safety concerns about the prayer hall roof, and safeguarding/DBS issues, together with disability discrimination, harassment, unfair dismissal, holiday pay and arrears claims. Applying the strike-out and deposit-order authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal treated the central factual disputes as matters for evidence rather than summary disposal.
On the whistleblowing and disability discrimination pleading challenges, the tribunal held that the claimant had pleaded the protected disclosures and disability issues sufficiently to proceed. It accepted that the claimant had referred to migraine attacks, panic attacks, asthma, high blood pressure, depression and sciatica as the conditions relied on, said the health and safety and safeguarding disclosures were pleaded, and held that the direct discrimination, section 15, indirect discrimination and harassment allegations should be tested at hearing rather than struck out. A further preliminary hearing on disability status was ordered, together with consideration of the unredacted medical records by another judge in chambers.
The judge reached a narrower adverse conclusion on the reasonable adjustments allegations. Those claims were said to be insufficiently particularised even after further particulars, and the judge noted the contradiction between saying the claimant was fit to return to work while also saying he could not attend an in-person return-to-work interview or disciplinary hearing; if the point was instead about the protagonists or protected disclosures, the judge said those were different causes of action. The tribunal therefore made a deposit-order ruling on the reasonable adjustments claims, but deferred the amount until it had evidence of the claimant's means and directed further particulars within 21 days. The holiday pay and arrears figures recorded in the background were not finally determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosures were pleaded about trustee appointments, health and safety risks at the prayer hall roof, and safeguarding/DBS issues. The tribunal held these allegations were sufficiently pleaded to proceed and refused to strike them out. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Pleaded as direct disability discrimination, section 15, indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments. The tribunal accepted the disability-status issue could proceed to a further preliminary hearing and refused strike out of the substantive disability allegations, but made a deposit-order ruling on the reasonable adjustments allegations because of the pleading contradiction identified in the reasons. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was pleaded and the tribunal held it was a matter for evidence rather than strike out. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal remained a live claim/detriment in the case summary, but this preliminary judgment made no merits finding and refused the respondents' strike-out application. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant pleaded holiday pay figures for summer 2020 and Christmas 2020-2021, but this judgment did not determine the claim on the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant pleaded non-payment from May 2020 and underpayment/arrears calculations based on 33.5 hours per week, but this judgment did not determine the claim on the merits. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- rule 37(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] EAT
- Cox v Adecco [2021] EAT
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College [2010] EAT
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] CA
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA [2016] EAT
- Ahir v British Airways PLC
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.