Case 2201616/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Khan v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201616/2018
- Decision date
- 25 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms S Samek, Mr I Mc Laughlin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous judgment recorded that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed. The judgment does not provide written reasons or a breakdown explaining the findings.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for detriment and dismissal for making protected disclosures, stating that they were not well-founded. It also dismissed the claim for race discrimination as not well-founded.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £12,116 within 28 days. The judgment does not allocate that sum between the successful claims or identify separate remedy components.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but does not split the monetary award by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states the claimant was wrongfully dismissed, but does not split the monetary award by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes the protected disclosure detriment and dismissal claims as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states the race discrimination claim was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,116
- across all upheld claims
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.