Case 3205970/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Sahidur Rahman v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2024
- Case reference
- 3205970/2021
- Decision date
- 17 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sahidur Rahman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the strike-out hearing on 16 February 2024, Employment Judge Housego considered the respondent's application under Rule 37 to strike out the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The judge applied the high threshold for striking out discrimination claims, referring to Ahir v British Airways Plc, but concluded that this was an exceptional case. The judge did not strike out for non-compliance with tribunal orders or for want of prosecution, noting that the claimant had attended the hearing and had ultimately complied with most directions, albeit late and incompletely.
On disability discrimination, the tribunal took the claimant's case at its highest as including anxiety and depression and borderline personality disorder, together with associative discrimination based on the disabilities of his father and brother. It found no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had not shown a causative link between any disability and the treatment complained of. The judge held that the allegations about management failure, delay in grievance handling, and moving the claimant between workplaces were generic complaints not tied to disability. The father's associative claim failed because the father had died, and the brother-related claim failed because the respondent had agreed to home working and had tried to provide a laptop, so there was no detriment from less favourable treatment because of the brother's disability.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of the claimant showing that dismissal was not for some other substantial reason or that the decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The judge relied on the claimant's account that he wanted to work from home to care for his brother, but had refused to collect or accept delivery of the laptop offered, had threatened a senior manager with a police complaint, and had not articulated a coherent disability-linked basis for the dismissal complaint. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim in full.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at the respondent's application because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37; the judge accepted the claimant's case was about the dismissal being unfair rather than procedurally unfair. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judge treated the case at its highest as including anxiety/depression and BPD, and also associative disability discrimination concerning the claimant's father and brother, but found no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Ahir v British Airways Plc strike-out guidance
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Bahl v The Law Society 'reason why' test
- Igen Ltd v Wong burden of proof
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.