Case 3201625/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hakim (3201625/2024) Mr E Adams (3201626/2024) v London Underground Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201625/2024
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hakim (3201625/2024) Mr E Adams (3201626/2024)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the linked claims of Mr A Hakim and Mr E Adams against London Underground Limited at the East London Hearing Centre on 19 and 20 June 2025. The judgment records that the claim by Mr Hakim, number 3201625/2024, was brought under s11 Employment Relations Act 1999 alleging a breach of s10 ERA 1999 in relation to his right to be accompanied at a meeting on 17 June 2024.
The tribunal held that the respondent did not breach s10 Employment Relations Act 1999 in relation to that meeting, and Mr Hakim's s11 claim was therefore dismissed. Claim number 3201626/2024 was dismissed on withdrawal because it was a duplicate claim.
The written record states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No financial award was made, and both linked claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim 3201625/2024 concerned an alleged breach of s10 Employment Relations Act 1999 in relation to Mr Hakim's right to be accompanied at the meeting on 17 June 2024. The tribunal found there was no breach and dismissed the s11 claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim 3201626/2024 was dismissed on withdrawal because it was a duplicate claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.