Case 1309075/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Shah v Food Hub Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1309075/2022
- Decision date
- 3 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr Howard, Mr Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Maxwell, sitting with Mr Howard and Mr Spencer, found that the claimant - an orthodox practising Muslim employed by an app-based food delivery business - was unfairly dismissed but that his claims of direct and indirect religious discrimination, and his breach of contract claim, were not well-founded.
On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that the post-summary-dismissal procedural steps had only the superficial appearance of fairness: the process was orchestrated by Mr Page to achieve the outcome already decided upon by the CEO (Mr Mula), with a probationary employee appointed as the disciplinary decision-maker under significant pressure. The investigation by Mr Page sought only evidence supporting the allegation, and the fuel card data was not obtained or presented in a fair and complete way. Dismissal would, however, have been within the range of reasonable responses had the allegation been fairly upheld.
The Tribunal applied a 25% Polkey reduction (50% prospect of the allegation being upheld x 50% prospect of dismissal in that event) and made no finding of contributory fault. PDF text was truncated; no monetary remedy was set out in the available text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religious discrimination claim not well-founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Indirect religious discrimination claim not well-founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only; remedy not stated. Tribunal indicated a 25% Polkey reduction (50% prospect of allegation being upheld x 50% prospect of dismissal). No contributory fault finding. PDF text was truncated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Bonus/commission claim — claimant did not establish the relevant contractual term or the facts of breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v A E Dayton Service Ltd
- Igen Ltd v Wong (referenced in burden of proof discussion)
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.