Case 1300043/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Muhammed Namat Ullah v Greencore Food To Go Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1300043/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Muhammed Namat Ullah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in which the tribunal dealt with the claimant's application to add Job & Talent UK Ltd as a respondent and with several discrimination complaints. The application to join Job & Talent UK Ltd was dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claims of age discrimination, disability discrimination, sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.
The claim of direct race discrimination was not dismissed at this stage. The judgment records that it shall proceed to trial, so the tribunal made no final merits finding on that claim in this record. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary decision.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim was allowed to proceed to trial; no final merits decision in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
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.
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.