Case 3200718/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Ibrahim v Devonshire House Surgery Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200718/2023
- Decision date
- 18 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Ibrahim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mrs M Ibrahim, did not appear at the hearing on 18 January 2024. The Respondent attended through Mr R Elahi, described in the judgment as a qualified barrister assisting as a friend, and Dr Mohammadi, the owner. Employment Judge Moor heard the case at East London Hearing Centre in public and gave judgment the same day.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Claimant had not completed two years' continuous employment. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint.
The claims of sex discrimination and age discrimination were each struck out because the Tribunal found that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The harassment claim was also struck out on the same basis. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have two complete years' continuous employment and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Harassment | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | 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.