Case 6019201/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ahmed v London Chamber of Commerce and Industry — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019201/2024
- Decision date
- 7 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct. The tribunal identified the issues as whether the respondent had a potentially fair reason, whether it genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, whether there were reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to conclude that the claimant had misrepresented his level of impairment while claiming sick pay, and that this amounted to serious dishonesty. It also found that contextual harassment matters contributed to the dismissal and that the respondent acted reasonably in taking account of a final written warning.
The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses and that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded. The pleaded breach of contract, holiday pay, and unpaid wages claims were dismissed because they were not particularised or pursued.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant ticked holiday pay in the ET1, but the judgment states it was not particularised or pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant ticked breach of contract in the ET1, but the judgment states it was not particularised or pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant ticked unpaid wages in the ET1, but the judgment states it was not particularised or pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Burchell 1978 IRLR 379
- Post Office v Foley 2000 IRLR 827
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones 1982 IRLR 439
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt 2003 IRLR 23
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small 2009 IRLR 563
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.