Case 6002919/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ahmad Sharif v London Borough of Islington — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002919/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heydon REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ahmad Sharif
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Heydon on 7 February 2025. The claimant, Mr Ahmad Sharif, was represented himself and the respondent, London Borough of Islington, was represented by Ms H Connors of counsel/solicitor.
The tribunal made a single determination: the complaint of whistleblowing, described in the judgment as a protected disclosure claim, was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. No substantive liability findings, factual disputes, or remedy findings are recorded in the judgment.
The judgment therefore disposes of the claim at preliminary stage and does not record any award or other monetary remedy. The judgment was sent to the parties on 17 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The preliminary hearing judgment states that the complaint of whistleblowing (protected disclosure) was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.