Case 1803420/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Malik, Lay representative Interpreter: Ms S Tahmasebinejad v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803420/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr G Corbett
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Malik, Lay representative Interpreter: Ms S Tahmasebinejad
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Leeds on 10 and 11 December 2019 before Employment Judge Evans and lay member Mr G Corbett. Its written judgment records oral reasons given at the hearing and sets out two conclusions only.
First, the tribunal found that Hovis Limited did not unfairly dismiss Mr I Bateny. Second, it found that the respondent did not discriminate against him by treating him unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability. No further reasoning, factual findings, or remedy assessment appears in the extracted record.
The judgment therefore records dismissal of both the unfair dismissal claim and the disability discrimination claim, with no monetary award recorded and no separate remedy findings stated in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal rejected the allegation that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.