Case 2201635/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Raquib v Lewis & Tucker Chartered Surveyors HELD AT: London Central — 2024
- Case reference
- 2201635/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Members
- Panel members
- Ms S Aslett, Mr S McLaughlin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Raquib
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr S Raquib, brought claims of direct race, religion or belief, sex and age discrimination, race related harassment, victimisation, unpaid holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages against Lewis & Tucker Chartered Surveyors. He did not have the two year qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim and confirmed his constructive dismissal contention was advanced only as an act of race and religion discrimination. The Tribunal, sitting at London Central before Employment Judge Akhtar with members Ms S Aslett and Mr S McLaughlin, heard the case over February and March 2024.
The Tribunal unanimously dismissed each head of claim. It found the Respondent had not contravened sections 13, 26 or 27 of the Equality Act 2010, concluding that the matters complained of were not because of race, religion or belief, sex or age, and did not amount to harassment or victimisation. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's explanations for the comparator treatment relied on, including the appointment of Mahesh Kewal and salary arrangements for other staff.
The holiday pay claim was dismissed: the £157.48 the Claimant accepted as owed on termination had been paid in May 2023, and he did not particularise any further entitlement. The unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims were dismissed because the Claimant did not prove on the balance of probabilities a contractual entitlement to a £50,000 salary or to overtime. The Tribunal also concluded that, all claims pre-dating 3 October 2022 being out of time and there being no continuing course of conduct, it would not have been just and equitable to extend time. Both parties' costs applications were refused.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Tribunal found the Respondent had not contravened s13 Equality Act 2010 in respect of direct race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Tribunal found the Respondent had not contravened s13 Equality Act 2010 in respect of direct religion or belief discrimination. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Tribunal found the Respondent had not contravened s13 Equality Act 2010 in respect of direct sex discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Tribunal found the Respondent had not contravened s13 Equality Act 2010 in respect of direct age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Race and religion related harassment claim under s26 Equality Act 2010 not upheld; judgment text records the race related harassment claim as not upheld. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Tribunal found the Respondent had not contravened s27 Equality Act 2010 in respect of victimisation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 62(3) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.