Case 3200296/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Razzaqul Chowdhury v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2017
- Case reference
- 3200296/2017
- Decision date
- 4 August 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Razzaqul Chowdhury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for alleged misconduct relating to his handling of two service users. The tribunal found that conduct was the reason for dismissal and that this was a potentially fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the respondent believed the claimant had failed to act on two safeguarding alerts concerning one service user and had moved another service user to sheltered accommodation without the required assessments and approvals. The underlying conduct was not substantially disputed. The tribunal also found that, although the claimant's inconsistent explanations were in truth the result of confusion and stress rather than untruthfulness, the employer had reasonable grounds at the time for believing he was giving a deliberately misleading account.
The tribunal considered the claimant's long service, unblemished disciplinary record, and personal stress relating to his mother's illness. It described the dismissal decision as very close to the edge of the band of reasonable responses, but concluded that, on the facts as reasonably believed by the employer, dismissal fell within that band and was fair.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claim of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Strouthos v London Underground Ltd
- AEI Cables Ltd v McLay
- London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham
- Post Office v Foley
- A v B
- Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan
- band of reasonable responses
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.