Mrs N Mulla Respondent (1): Dr K Hamid Respondent (2): Dr S Hamid Heard at Sheffield by video v Dr K Hamid — 2025

The hearing took place at Sheffield by video on 18 September 2025 before Employment Judge Brain. The claimant was represented by Mr Y Lunat, solicitor, and the first respondent, Dr K Hamid, appeared in person. The written judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaints brought under the Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed because they had been withdrawn.

The first respondent’s application to strike out the claim on the basis of non-compliance with section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 was refused. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had obtained a valid early conciliation certificate naming the first respondent, so that objection did not succeed.

The respondents’ application under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out the Equality Act 2010 claim as having no reasonable prospect of success was also refused. The tribunal held that the claim could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success, but the extracted judgment does not identify the specific factual basis of that Equality Act complaint.

The respondents’ application that New Brooklyn Dental Care should not be shown as a respondent succeeded. The tribunal held that New Brooklyn Dental Care is not a separate legal entity and that the claim against it was therefore a nullity.