Mr B Islam Répondent: Central Mosque Northampton v Mr Saeed, solicitor — 2025

The claimant, Mr B Islam, was employed by Central Mosque Northampton as an Imam from 2 August 2010 until his dismissal on 7 May 2021. The tribunal heard the case in June 2025. It first dealt with the protected disclosure detriment complaint as a preliminary issue and found it was presented after the three-month time limit. The tribunal held that the relevant deadline was 15 July 2021 and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the complaint in time, so that complaint was dismissed.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was misconduct, namely the claimant’s public communications criticising his employer. It accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had been disrespectful and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, including WhatsApp messages and other public comments. The tribunal also found, however, that the investigation was not reasonable because the claimant was not interviewed and was not given a proper opportunity to respond or suggest witnesses, and that the procedure was overall unfair because the appeal process did not give him a full right of appeal.

The tribunal held that the dismissal remained within the range of reasonable responses and therefore found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural defects. It then applied the Polkey approach and concluded there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been dismissed in any event, so any compensatory award would be reduced to £0. It also found that the 2017 report could amount to a qualifying disclosure under section 43B ERA 1996 and that the claimant genuinely believed it was in the public interest, but the dismissal was not because he made a protected disclosure.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal found the dismissal was caused by the claimant’s misconduct and not by any protected disclosure. The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed because the claimant was paid the contractual £250 net per month and had no entitlement to the additional pay rise he sought. The judgment records a further remedy hearing, so it does not set a final monetary total in this decision.