Case 3202412/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Sanwar Ali v Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and others — 2021

Case reference: 3202412/2019
Decision date: 24 November 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Jones Representation
Venue: East London hearing Centre

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Sanwar Ali

Respondent

Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and others

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was an open preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out the claims. After an adjournment to confer with counsel, the claimant withdrew claim numbers 3202412/2019, 3200461/2020 and 3200738/2021, and those claims were dismissed by way of withdrawal. The tribunal also dismissed the claims against the individual named respondents, holding that they were not regulatory bodies and that section 53 of the Equality Act 2010 only confers jurisdiction over complaints against qualifications bodies.

The remaining substantive complaint, 3202630/2020, alleged direct race discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, age discrimination, victimisation and harassment arising from an OISC letter dated 29 July 2020 about the claimant's attempt to re-register his companies to provide immigration advice. The tribunal held that the OISC is a qualifications or regulatory body within section 53 Equality Act 2010, and that section 120(7) did not bar the claim because there was no final decision capable of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal in relation to the letter. It therefore held that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the complaint.

On the merits, the tribunal concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed it under rule 37(1)(a). It found no evidence from which race, age, or religion or belief discrimination could be inferred. The claimant accepted that he had not enclosed the required fee with his application, and he did not dispute that criminal proceedings were ongoing when the letter was written; those were the reasons given in the letter for suspending consideration of the application, and the tribunal did not accept that there was any evidential basis to go behind them.

The tribunal also rejected the victimisation allegation because the claimed protected act, dated 13 August 2020, came after the alleged detriment letter of 29 July 2020, so the sequence could not support victimisation. It further held that there were no reasonable prospects that the contents of the 29 July 2020 letter amounted to harassment. No monetary remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Claim number 3202412/2019 was withdrawn after the claimant accepted that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The underlying claim type is not identified in this decision.	Withdrawn	—	—
Other	Claim number 3200461/2020 was withdrawn after the claimant accepted that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The underlying claim type is not identified in this decision.	Withdrawn	—	—
Other	Claim number 3200738/2021 was withdrawn after the claimant accepted that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The underlying claim type is not identified in this decision.	Withdrawn	—	—
Race discrimination	Part of claim number 3202630/2020. The tribunal held there were no reasonable prospects of a race discrimination claim succeeding and found no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred; it accepted the letter's stated reasons of a missing fee and ongoing criminal proceedings.	Struck out	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Part of claim number 3202630/2020. The tribunal found no reasonable prospects of a religion or belief discrimination claim and noted no reference in the papers to the claimant's religion or to the respondent's awareness of it.	Struck out	Religion or belief	—
Age discrimination	Part of claim number 3202630/2020. The tribunal found no reasonable prospects of an age discrimination claim and noted no reference in the papers to age or age group.

Legal tests applied

6 references

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.