Case 2200148/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Z. Rahman, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200148/2020
- Decision date
- 21 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr. Z. Rahman, solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 15 January 2020 alleging unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, race and sex discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and failure to pay notice or holiday pay. At the preliminary hearing on 14 May 2020, the claimant's solicitor confirmed that redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay had in fact been paid, and those three claims were dismissed under rule 52 on withdrawal.
The remaining claims were not determined at this hearing. The tribunal recorded that the case was already listed for final hearing in October 2020 and that an open preliminary hearing would decide whether the race and sex discrimination and harassment claims should be struck out, whether any of those claims should be subject to a deposit order, and whether the claimant's recording of a conversation on 26 November 2019 should be admitted in evidence. The tribunal also made case management orders requiring further information about bumping and training allegations, disclosure of consultation and grievance documents, and preparation of the hearing bundle.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim for redundancy payment was dismissed under rule 52 after the claimant confirmed it had in fact been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay was dismissed under rule 52 after the claimant confirmed notice pay had in fact been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for holiday pay was dismissed under rule 52 after the claimant confirmed holiday pay had in fact been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.