Case 1305261/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Rabar Mahmood v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305261/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rabar Mahmood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Gidney at Midlands West on 8 May 2025. The tribunal recorded that the claims for direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, and holiday pay were struck out and/or refused as amendments to the claim form. The extracted text does not break down which of those procedural outcomes applied to each listed claim individually.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Listed among claims struck out and/or refused by amendment; the judgment does not allocate the procedural treatment claim by claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. Listed among claims struck out and/or refused by amendment; the judgment does not allocate the procedural treatment claim by claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Other | Discrimination arising from disability. Listed among claims struck out and/or refused by amendment; the judgment does not allocate the procedural treatment claim by claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Listed among claims struck out and/or refused by amendment; the judgment does not allocate the procedural treatment claim by claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Listed among claims struck out and/or refused by amendment; the judgment does not allocate the procedural treatment claim by claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Listed among claims struck out and/or refused by amendment; the judgment does not allocate the procedural treatment claim by claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.