Case 3201301/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ahmed v Barts Health NHS Trust PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201301/2024
- Decision date
- 2 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
- Venue
- East London Tribunal Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ahmed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the respondent's name was amended to Barts Health NHS Trust. The claimant's breach of contract claim for failure to pay notice pay was struck out because he had not responded to a strike out warning.
The tribunal considered whether the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety during the relevant period of his employment from 20 November 2023 to 21 March 2024. It found the medical evidence vague as to diagnosis, dates, and medication, and found that the claimant's evidence about the effects of depression and anxiety did not deal with the relevant period.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown that he had depression and anxiety at the relevant time, or that his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities was substantially affected during his employment. His disability discrimination claims under sections 15 and 20/21 of the Equality Act were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was for failure to pay notice pay and was struck out after the parties confirmed the claimant had not responded to a strike out warning. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that claims under sections 15 and 20/21 of the Equality Act were dismissed because the claimant did not meet the definition of disability at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 3
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4
- Peart v Dixons Store Group Retail Limited (2004) UKEAT/0630/04
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] ICR 1056
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729
- All Answers Ltd v W [2021] EWCA Civ 606
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.