Case 3308895/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Albu v London Underground Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308895/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baran
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Albu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mr Albu brought an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint arising from the termination of his employment by London Underground. The respondent relied on capability or qualifications as the reason for dismissal, and the Tribunal considered the adequacy of the dismissal and appeal process in relation to the claimant's qualifications for the Plant Fitter role.
The Tribunal found that by the time of the appeal Mr Albu had presented equivalent qualifications which on their face were sufficient to meet London Underground's interpretation of the job requirements. It also found that the appeal decision relied on advice about his qualifications without giving him an opportunity to comment on or challenge that advice. Dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses, the claimant did not cause or contribute to his dismissal, and no relevant ACAS Code applied. Remedy, including any Polkey or no-difference issue, was left for a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment only. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey/no difference
- range of reasonable responses
- s207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.