Case 3305546/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Mohamed v British Airways plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305546/2024
- Decision date
- 5 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Mohamed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Mohamed, brought complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, religion and belief discrimination, and whistleblowing against British Airways Plc. At the hearing on 16 December 2024 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, the tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim form to include matters set out in an email dated 4 December 2024.
The tribunal held that the complaints in the claim form dated 30 May 2024 had been presented outside the time limit for presenting those complaints. It concluded that it could not consider the unfair dismissal, race discrimination, religion and belief discrimination, and whistleblowing complaints, and ordered that the claimant's complaints be struck out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint in the claim form dated 30 May 2024 was presented outside the time limit and could not be considered. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held this complaint was presented outside the time limit and could not be considered. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal held this complaint was presented outside the time limit and could not be considered. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held this complaint was presented outside the time limit and could not be considered. | Struck out | — | — |
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.