Case 1802653/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Babu v Historic Hotels and Properties Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802653/2023
- Decision date
- 15 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Members
- Panel members
- Mr M Taj, Mr C Childs
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Babu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 29 and 30 November 2023 before Employment Judge Shepherd, with members Mr M Taj and Mr C Childs. The claimant, Mr A Babu, appeared in person and the respondent, Historic Hotels and Properties Ltd, was represented by Mr Scott, Director.
The Tribunal gave a unanimous oral judgment that the claims of unauthorised deduction from wages and outstanding holiday pay were not well-founded and were dismissed. It also held that the claims of race discrimination and sex discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed.
The published record does not include written reasons, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are provided in the record itself. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim of unauthorised deduction from wages was found not well-founded and dismissed. The published record gives no written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for outstanding holiday pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. The published record gives no written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. The published record gives no written reasons. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Sex discrimination claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. The published record gives no written reasons. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.