Case 6006052/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Sbahit Hussain v Arrow Enterprise Computing Solutions Limited Case Numbers: 6006052/2024 and 6038777/2025 — 2026
- Case reference
- 6006052/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grahame Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sbahit Hussain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Grahame Anderson dismissed Sbahit Hussain’s two protected-disclosure complaints against Arrow Enterprise Computing Solutions Limited on withdrawal. These concerned automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and detriment under section 47B. Neither complaint was decided on its merits.
In claim 6006052/2024, the tribunal refused permission to add four provisions, criteria or practices to the reasonable-adjustments complaint. These were a requirement to perform the duties of the role; a requirement to participate verbally in meetings; the application of standard performance management processes; and a practice of failing to implement occupational health or medical recommendations within a reasonable time. The ruling concerned the proposed amendment and did not dismiss the underlying reasonable-adjustments complaint.
In claim 6038777/2025, the tribunal refused permission to add a disability discrimination complaint under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The proposed complaint concerned refusal of reasonable-adjustment requests, particularly on 6 March 2025 and at meetings on 21 May and 5 June 2025. The tribunal also refused permission to add a victimisation complaint under section 27 alleging that the respondent had failed to deal with Hussain’s grievance because he had done a protected act.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing on 2 July 2026 and are not set out in the written judgment. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures under s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal, without a determination on its merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of detriment on the ground of making protected disclosures under s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal, without a determination on its merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | In claim 6006052/2024, permission to add four proposed provisions, criteria or practices to the failure-to-make-reasonable-adjustments complaint was refused. This was an amendment ruling, not a dismissal of the underlying complaint. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | In claim 6038777/2025, permission to add a complaint under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 concerning refusal of reasonable-adjustment requests was refused. The proposed complaint was not determined on its merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | In claim 6038777/2025, permission to add a complaint under s.27 of the Equality Act 2010 alleging failure to deal with a grievance because the claimant had done a protected act was refused. The proposed complaint was not determined on its merits; the protected act was not specified. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Rights Act 1996, s.103A
- Employment Rights Act 1996, s.47B
- Equality Act 2010, s.15
- Equality Act 2010, s.27
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.