Case 3201089/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr I Ahmed v Abbey Medical Centre — 2019

Case reference: 3201089/2018
Decision date: 26 June 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Russell
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Mrs B Saund, Mr P Quinn

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr I Ahmed

Respondent

Abbey Medical Centre

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dismissed Mr I Ahmed's unfair dismissal claim. It also dismissed the claim of unlawful discrimination because of race and/or religion and belief. No legal test was cited in the short judgment for those dismissals.

The claim of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded. The tribunal found a continuous series of underpayments running from 24 October 2011 until 28 February 2018 and ordered Abbey Medical Centre to pay Mr Ahmed £4,920 gross. The judgment records that Mr Ahmed understood and confirmed he bore full responsibility for any tax due on that sum.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The judgment referred to discrimination because of race and/or religion and belief and dismissed the claim.	Dismissed	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The judgment referred to discrimination because of race and/or religion and belief and dismissed the claim.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal awarded £4,920 gross for a continuous series of underpayments from 24 October 2011 until 28 February 2018.	Upheld	—	£4,920

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £4,920; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.