Case 6004315/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Farrah Ali v London Underground Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004315/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Suzanne Palmer
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Farrah Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 8 April 2025 before Employment Judge Suzanne Palmer at East London Hearing Centre, the Tribunal dealt with the claimant’s application dated 31 January 2025 to amend her claim and refused that application. The claimant was self-represented, assisted by Ms A Carney, and the respondent was represented by Mr Winspear, Counsel.
The Tribunal then struck out the claimant’s claim in its entirety under Rule 38(1)(a). The reason given was that the claim disclosed no identifiable claim over which the Tribunal had jurisdiction and therefore had no reasonable prospects of success. No separate remedy or award was made.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The judgment does not set out any further factual findings or identify the underlying cause of action in specific statutory terms.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify a specific underlying statutory claim; the Tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 38(1)(a) because it disclosed no identifiable claim over which the Tribunal had jurisdiction and no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.