Case 6047971/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Sherif Ekram v Optical Express Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6047971/2025
- Decision date
- 5 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Sherif Ekram
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the Claimant's application for interim relief in relation to his case that he had made protected disclosures on 22 May 2025 and 10 June 2025, and that his dismissal was because of those disclosures. The Tribunal stated that it was carrying out a predictive assessment on the material before it and was not making final factual determinations.
On a broad assessment, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Claimant had shown a pretty good chance of establishing at a full merits hearing that he made qualifying protected disclosures. It also considered the position hypothetically if the disclosures were protected, and concluded that the Claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of proving that the disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal, noting evidence pointing to conduct as another potential reason.
The application for interim relief was dismissed. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismissed the Claimant's application for interim relief. It did not finally determine the substantive whistleblowing dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43C Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v Shippam Ltd
- pretty good chance of success
- Dandpat v University of Bath
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Al Qasimi v Robinson
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.