Case 6017057/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ali v Dr N Latif, Dr R Alidina, Dr R Shaik — 2026
- Case reference
- 6017057/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Attendances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Ali's complaint of direct sex discrimination against Dr N Latif, Dr R Alidina and Dr R Shaik was found not well-founded and dismissed. His complaint of harassment related to sex was also found not well-founded and dismissed.
The Tribunal additionally found the victimisation complaint not well-founded and dismissed it. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing, but the written judgment records no underlying factual findings or further reasoning. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct sex discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to sex was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint was found not well-founded and dismissed. The judgment does not identify the protected act or otherwise expressly attribute a protected characteristic to this complaint; sex is recorded because all substantive discrimination complaints identified in the judgment concern sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.