Case 3201321/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Sanwar Ali v Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner — 2018
- Case reference
- 3201321/2018
- Decision date
- 20 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Sanwar Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr. Sanwar Ali brought claims of direct and indirect race discrimination, racial harassment and victimisation against the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. The tribunal heard the matter on 1 November 2018 and treated the claim as involving two periods: the earlier refusal and cancellation of the registrations of Workpermit and Visa Joy, and the later enforcement investigation and interview process from January 2017 onwards.
For the earlier period, the judge found that the respondent was acting as a qualifications body under section 53 Equality Act 2010. Because the refusal and cancellation decisions were appealable under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and the claimant had been told in those appeals that he could raise race discrimination issues, section 120(7) removed Employment Tribunal jurisdiction over those complaints. The judge also said that, even if that conclusion were wrong, the earlier complaints would have been struck out as an abuse of process because they had not been brought forward in the appeal proceedings.
For the later period, the tribunal held that the respondent's investigation and enforcement activity was not the exercise of a qualifications body function for the purposes of section 53. On that basis, the Employment Tribunal again had no jurisdiction and the later complaints were also struck out. The judge added that, if jurisdiction had existed, the later complaints would probably have been out of time because the last proposed interview under caution mentioned in the reasons was 6 June 2017 and the claim was presented on 27 June 2018. The entire claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a), and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints were struck out. The tribunal held that the pre-January 2017 complaints fell within the statutory appeal route under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, so section 120(7) Equality Act 2010 removed jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination complaints were struck out on the same jurisdictional basis. The judge also said those matters would have been struck out as an abuse of process because they could and should have been raised in the earlier appeals. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Racial harassment complaints were struck out. The tribunal held that the later enforcement activity from January 2017 onwards was not action by a qualifications body for the purposes of section 53 Equality Act 2010, so there was no Employment Tribunal jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints were struck out for the same reasons as the other complaints. The judge added that, if jurisdiction had existed, the later complaints would likely have been out of time. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.53 Equality Act 2010
- s.120(7) Equality Act 2010
- Henderson v Henderson
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.