Case 6012704/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abdal Miah v London Borough of Hackney — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012704/2024
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Suzanne Palmer
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abdal Miah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 28-31 October 2025 before Employment Judge Suzanne Palmer, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal and his direct discrimination complaints on race and on religion or belief. The judgment states that each of those complaints was not well-founded and dismissed.
The written record also records that the claimant's sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination and disability discrimination complaints had been abandoned at the preliminary hearing on 27 February 2025, and that his application to amend to include associative disability discrimination was refused on 30 September 2025. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim in its entirety.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out a separate remedy award or further detailed factual findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment uses the phrase 'Unfair (Constructive) Dismissal'. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.