Case 1304121/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Khushdeep Johal v -v- British Telecommunications plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304121/2023
- Decision date
- 23 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Khushdeep Johal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 23 February 2024, Employment Judge Perry issued a one-page judgment in Mr Khushdeep Johal v British Telecommunications Plc. The judgment records that the claim includes solely complaints of discrimination based on age, race, and religion or belief, with the claimant describing himself as a British Indian Asian Sikh and as Sikh.
The extract states that all other complaints are dismissed, but it does not state a final merits outcome for the age, race, or religion or belief complaints themselves. No remedy is recorded in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment says the claim includes complaints of age discrimination, but the supplied extract does not state the outcome of that complaint; it only says all other complaints are dismissed. | Other | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment says the claim includes complaints of race discrimination, described by the claimant as British Indian Asian Sikh, but the supplied extract does not state the outcome of that complaint; it only says all other complaints are dismissed. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment says the claim includes complaints of religion or belief discrimination, described by the claimant as Sikh, but the supplied extract does not state the outcome of that complaint; it only says all other complaints are dismissed. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
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.