Case 1305972/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohammad Khan v Professional Pizza Company Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305972/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coghlin QC
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohammad Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Birmingham on 26 May 2021, Employment Judge Coghlin QC struck out the claimant's claims for breach of contract, sex discrimination, and discrimination on the grounds of race and religion and belief. The judgment states that these claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success in relation to the alleged acts of less favourable treatment, including the reimbursement issue, the car search/interrogation allegation, and the cleaning-fluid allegation. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success in relation to the alleged acts of less favourable treatment, including the reimbursement issue, the car search/interrogation allegation, and the cleaning-fluid allegation. | Struck out | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.