Case 6023602/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Abdimohamed v Avantao Technologies Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023602/2025
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Abdimohamed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of race discrimination about a DevOps Engineer advert on Glassdoor. The judgment records that the advert said only candidates who are immigrants from India would be considered, and that the claimant said this prevented him from applying.
The respondent did not provide an accepted response to the claim and did not attend. Under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, having heard the claimant's evidence and noted that the relevant facts were not disputed by the respondent, the tribunal issued judgment for the claimant.
The complaint of indirect race discrimination was found to be well-founded and succeeded. Remedy was not decided in this judgment and was listed for a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of indirect race discrimination is well-founded and succeeds. Remedy was reserved for a hearing on 16 January 2026. | Upheld | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.