Case 6011215/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Sayyid Shah v London Borough of Newham — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011215/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Balroop Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sayyid Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, race discrimination, religious discrimination and whistle blowing. He withdrew the unfair dismissal claim by email on 30 September 2024.
The tribunal recorded that insufficient information had been provided for the respondent or tribunal to know the exact issues in the remaining claims. The claimant was ordered to provide further information by 17 March 2025, and the 16 May 2025 preliminary hearing was listed to consider strike out or deposit orders.
The tribunal considered the claimant's adjournment request and fitness to work note, but was not satisfied that his current issue had prevented him from providing the ordered information. It found that, without the further details, the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, that the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders, and that the claim was not being actively pursued, so the whole claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claim by email on 30 September 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records disability discrimination as one of the claims presented. The whole remaining claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a), (c) and (d). | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records race discrimination as one of the claims presented. The whole remaining claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a), (c) and (d). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment records religious discrimination as one of the claims presented. The whole remaining claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a), (c) and (d). | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records whistle blowing as one of the claims presented. The whole remaining claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a), (c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rule 38(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rule 38(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rule 38(1)(d)
- Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules 2024
- Bahad v HSBC Bank plc 2022 EAT 83
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.