Case 1806772/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sundas Alam v St GilesTrust and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1806772/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms Sundas Alam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing at Leeds by CVP on 7 May 2025 before Employment Judge Lancaster. The claim was brought by Ms Sundas Alam against St GilesTrust and others. The judgment is dated 8 May 2025.
The First Respondent applied to strike out complaints of pregnancy discrimination, harassment related to sex, and victimisation on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal refused that application.
The judgment contains no findings on the underlying merits of the complaints and no remedy award. It records only that the strike-out application failed, so the listed complaints remained extant after this preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | At a public preliminary hearing on 7 May 2025, the First Respondent's application to strike out this complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success was refused. The judgment records no merits determination or remedy for this complaint. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Harassment | At a public preliminary hearing on 7 May 2025, the First Respondent's application to strike out the complaint of harassment related to sex as having no reasonable prospect of success was refused. The judgment records no merits determination or remedy for this complaint. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | At a public preliminary hearing on 7 May 2025, the First Respondent's application to strike out the victimisation complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success was refused. The judgment records no merits determination or remedy for this complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.