Case 2200747/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mahmudul Azim v Coral Racing Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200747/2024
- Decision date
- 6 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anthony REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mahmudul Azim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned on 11 December 2023 and alleged constructive dismissal, relying on an alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal considered complaints about how the respondent dealt with a customer complaint and meetings with managers on 1 and 8 February 2023.
The tribunal found that the respondent acted reasonably in attempting to deal with the customer complaint informally. It rejected the claimant's evidence that he had been subjected to threats, harassment, shouting or conduct designed to humiliate, and found no conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned because he was unhappy with the outcome of the grievance process, not because of a fundamental breach of contract. It held that the claimant had not proved a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The supplied PDF text was truncated, but it included the judgment outcome and concluding reasons dismissing the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik and Mahmud v BCCI
- implied term of trust and confidence
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.