Case 1801053/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Mirza v Humankind Charity — 2021
- Case reference
- 1801053/2021
- Decision date
- 11 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr Langman, Mr Lannaman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Mirza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr N Mirza brought claims against Humankind Charity for unfair dismissal, protected-disclosure-related less favourable treatment and automatic unfair dismissal, and race discrimination. The tribunal, sitting at Leeds, heard the case on 8, 9, 10 and 11 November 2021 before Employment Judge Shepherd with lay members Mr Langman and Mr Lannaman.
The written judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. It also records that the claims of less favourable treatment and automatic unfair dismissal by reason of making a protected disclosure were not well-founded and were dismissed. No separate remedy was recorded in the written judgment.
The race discrimination claim was also found not well-founded and was dismissed. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so the written record does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or legal reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the claims of less favourable treatment and automatic unfair dismissal by reason of making a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.