Case 3314517/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abdul Karim v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314517/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Non-Legal
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- J Hancock, I Sood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abdul Karim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to consider Mr Karim's complaint of dismissal arising as a result of something as a consequence of disability.
It also found that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was not well-founded and dismissed that complaint. The tribunal further decided that it had no jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract complaint.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint of dismissal arising as a result of something as a consequence of disability. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract complaint. | Other | — | — |
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.