Case 3302755/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ahmad v Oxford Policy Management Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302755/2020
- Decision date
- 23 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ahmad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr J Ahmad had been employed by Oxford Policy Management India Private Limited, not Oxford Policy Management Ltd, from 1 August 2018. It accepted that OPM India was a separate legal entity and noted that the claimant lived and worked in India. The revised contract sent on 27 November 2018 stated that it was governed by Indian law and gave exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of Delhi.
On that basis, the tribunal held that OPM India was the correct legal entity against which any claim should be brought. It also found that the contract had no connection with England and Wales other than the fact that the employer was a wholly owned subsidiary of a UK-registered company.
The tribunal concluded that it had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the claimant's complaints and dismissed the claim. The judgment does not contain any merits findings on the underlying complaints.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's complaints after finding that, from 1 August 2018, he was employed by OPM India in India rather than the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's complaints after finding that, from 1 August 2018, he was employed by OPM India in India rather than the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's complaints after finding that, from 1 August 2018, he was employed by OPM India in India rather than the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's complaints after finding that, from 1 August 2018, he was employed by OPM India in India rather than the respondent. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's complaints after finding that, from 1 August 2018, he was employed by OPM India in India rather than the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.