Case 3200282/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ruhel Ahmed v Uber London Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200282/2025
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Iman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ruhel Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 20 August 2025, the parties told the tribunal they had believed the matter was settled, but the Respondent said no settlement had been reached and it was prepared to proceed on preliminary legal points. The Claimant said he was not an employee for the purposes of an unfair dismissal claim, and he also said he wished to pursue further claims including unlawful deduction of wages, unlawful detriment for asserting a statutory right, and breach of contract.
The tribunal did not determine those further matters. It recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn after the Claimant agreed he was not an employee. It then recorded that, because the ET1 was expressly limited to unfair dismissal and lacked particulars of any other claim, the Claimant consented to dismissal. The judgment states that the claim was withdrawn and dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the Claimant agreed he was not an employee for unfair dismissal purposes, that the unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn, and later that he consented to dismissal; the final sentence states that the claim was 'withdrawn and dismissed'. | 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.