Case 6015345/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ahmed v London Borough of Waltham Forest — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015345/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smyth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance and did not attend the preliminary hearing. Employment Judge Smyth considered Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and decided that a determination could properly be made on part of the claimant's claims, entering judgment in default.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims for discrimination, victimisation, whistleblowing, and breach of contract succeed. The breach of contract claim is described as concerning removal of honorarium and unlawful withdrawal of job offer. The extract does not set out the underlying factual findings or a full merits analysis because the respondent did not engage with the proceedings.
Remedy was not decided in this judgment. The issue of remedy was listed for a Remedy Hearing on Friday 4 July 2025 at the Import Building, 2 Clove Crescent, London, with a time estimate of one day.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Default judgment under Rule 22; the judgment records that the claimant's discrimination claim succeeds. Remedy is to be determined at the Remedy Hearing on 4 July 2025. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Default judgment under Rule 22 after the respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance or attend the preliminary hearing. Remedy is to be determined at the Remedy Hearing on 4 July 2025. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Default judgment under Rule 22; the judgment states that the whistleblowing claim succeeds. Remedy is to be determined at the Remedy Hearing on 4 July 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Default judgment under Rule 22. The breach of contract claim is described as concerning removal of honorarium and unlawful withdrawal of job offer. Remedy is to be determined at the Remedy Hearing on 4 July 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
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.