Case 1300808/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Sehmar v Continental Automotive Trading UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1300808/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Panel members
- Ms Astill, Mrs Malatesta
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Sehmar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at the West Midlands (Birmingham) Employment Tribunal on 17 and 20 to 25 May 2024 before Employment Judge Childe sitting with Ms Astill and Mrs Malatesta. The claimant was represented by Mr Holland and the respondent by Ms Dalziel.
The written judgment records three complaints only: direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation. Each was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The judgment states that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing; the written record itself does not set out the tribunal's reasoning beyond the recorded outcomes.
No monetary award is recorded in the written decision. The tribunal note states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's notice.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records that the complaint of harassment related to race was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.