Case 1801462/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Munir v Sheffield City Council and 6 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1801462/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
Parties
8 namedClaimant
Miss A Munir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing dealt with clarification of the issues, the claimant's amendment application, strike out and deposit applications, and a reserved costs application. The claimant sought to replace the existing particulars with a much longer amended pleading and to add numerous further protected acts and alleged exclusions from meetings. Applying the Selkent and Cocking balancing exercise, the tribunal held that most of the proposed amendment was a substantial expansion rather than mere clarification and would require significant further factual enquiry. It allowed only limited amendments: removal from the housing project could be pleaded as a victimisation detriment and a whistleblowing detriment, and dismissal could be pleaded as a victimisation detriment.
The wrongful dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had been given one month's contractual notice, so the tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of success on that head. The protected disclosure claim was not struck out, but it will proceed only on the five protected disclosures already identifiable from the pleadings. Wider attempts to add further protected acts and a large list of excluded meetings and development opportunities were refused, and the tribunal said some of those matters would in any event have justified strike out because of the disproportionate factual enquiry and the impact on a fair trial.
The direct race and religion discrimination claim and the disability discrimination claims were not struck out at this stage. Instead, the tribunal made unless orders: the claimant had to clarify the race and religion point, including who refused the prayer-space request and when, and had to provide relevant medical records in unredacted form apart from her NHS number together with a disability impact statement. The tribunal said a fair trial remained possible if the case was tightly case managed. The costs application was reserved and no remedy was awarded at this preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had been given one month's contractual notice, so the tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of success on this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure claim was allowed to proceed on the basis of the five protected disclosures already identifiable from the pleadings. The wider attempt to add further protected acts and exclusion-from-meetings allegations was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal allowed only limited amendment: removal from the housing project could be pleaded as a victimisation detriment, and dismissal could be pleaded as a victimisation detriment. Wider allegations about exclusion from numerous meetings and development opportunities were refused and said to be vulnerable to strike out. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race/religion discrimination claim was not struck out at this stage. The tribunal made an unless order and required further clarification, including who refused the prayer-space request and when. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The direct race/religion discrimination claim was not struck out at this stage. The tribunal made an unless order and required further clarification, including who refused the prayer-space request and when. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Cocking v Sandhurst balancing exercise
- Selkent v Moore balancing exercise
- McFarlane v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis substance over form
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage strike-out test
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union principle
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust approach
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson / Blockbuster Entertainment fair trial test
- Jansen van Rensberg deposit order test
- Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust overriding objective
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.