Case 3302912/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohammed Rahman v Serco Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302912/2024
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohammed Rahman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 20 August 2025 was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bartlett. The tribunal first clarified that the claimant's race allegations were all direct race discrimination claims, and that the allegations against Mr Paul Cox related to events after 29 September 2023. It applied the strikeout and deposit order rules under r.38 and r.40, and the burden of proof authorities cited for discrimination issues.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal found that the claimant's employment with Serco began on 17 March 2023, with the earlier period from 11 October 2022 to 16 March 2023 being engagement through Berkely Scott. On that basis the claimant could not satisfy the two-year service requirement, and the tribunal also held that any alleged dismissal on 10 December 2024 could not be part of the ET1 lodged on 7 March 2024.
On holiday pay, the claimant said he had accrued 228 hours, accepted that 108 hours had been paid, and said 120 hours remained due. The tribunal found that he had not properly explained how the claim was calculated. It held that the 39.81-hour element related to a period before 17 March 2023, when he was not employed by Serco, and struck out the part of the claim beyond that. For the remaining 39.81-hour element it made a £50 deposit order because it considered the allegation to have little reasonable prospect of success as an unlawful deduction from wages claim.
The direct race discrimination claims were found to be in time. The tribunal treated the allegations from 21 September 2023 onwards as part of a continuing act connected to the investigation into complaints by two residents of the Asylum hotel. It also held that, if necessary, time would be extended on a just and equitable basis because any delay was short. Although the tribunal noted the allegations were vague, it declined to strike them out or make a deposit order, so those claims remained to be determined on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the respondent relationship began on 17 March 2023, so the claimant lacked two years' service, and held that any alleged dismissal on 10 December 2024 could not found the ET1 lodged on 7 March 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal made a £50 deposit order in relation to the 39.81-hour element of the holiday pay allegation because it considered that part to have little reasonable prospect of success. It did not finally determine liability on that part. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out the part of the holiday pay claim said to exceed 39.81 hours. It found the claimant had not properly particularised how the holiday pay figure was calculated and that the 39.81-hour element related to a period before 17 March 2023 when he was not employed by Serco. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claims were held to be in time as part of a continuing act starting on 21 September 2023. Alternatively, the tribunal said it would extend time on a just and equitable basis. It noted the allegations were vague but declined to strike out or make a deposit order, leaving the merits for hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- r.38 ET Rules of Procedure 2024
- r.40(1) ET Rules of Procedure 2024
- Allan v Wandsworth LBC
- Anyanwu v South Bank University
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Cox v Adecco
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong / Barton v Investec Securities Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- James v Greenwich LBC
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.