Vol. I·6 May 2026

Search the index

Loading…

Loading page content.

Tribunal Watch

A structured, cross-cut index of UK employment tribunal decisions, built from the primary record at gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. Independent of HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice.

Not legal advice. Information on this site is a matter of public record; it is not guidance on any individual case.

Editorial

About this site
Methodology
Corrections policy
Editorial standards

Rights & privacy

Open Government Licence v3.0
Privacy notice
Data subject requests
Atom feed (recent decisions)

Mr Y Mahmood v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council TELEPHONE PRIVATE PRELIMINARY HEARING — Employment Tribunal 2020 | Tribunal Watch

Tribunal Watch/Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council TELEPHONE PRIVATE PRELIMINARY HEARING/1803889/2020

Case 1803889/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Y Mahmood v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council TELEPHONE PRIVATE PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020

Case reference: 1803889/2020
Decision date: 28 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Shore Appearances

Indexed: 29 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Y Mahmood

Respondent

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council TELEPHONE PRIVATE PRELIMINARY HEARING

Claims brought

5 categories

Disability discrimination
Race discrimination
Religion or belief discrimination
Sex discrimination
Unfair dismissal

Source tags (gov.uk)

Disability Discrimination
Race Discrimination
Religion or Belief Discrimination
Sex Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal

Outcomes per claim are extracted in a second pass and are not yet published on this page.

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available on gov.uk under the .

Open Government Licence v3.0

Judgment 1 (PDF)
Judgment 2 (PDF)
Judgment 3 (PDF)
Judgment 4 (PDF)

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.