Case 2205097/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Munisamy v Towers Watson Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205097/2019
- Decision date
- 10 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Munisamy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khan issued a judgment under rule 52 recording that the following complaints were dismissed on withdrawal: unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, disability-related harassment, discrimination arising from disability, and unauthorised deductions from wages. The judgment does not make merits findings on those complaints; it records only that they were withdrawn and dismissed accordingly.
The same judgment states that the remaining complaints of indirect disability discrimination, failure to make adjustments, and holiday pay were to proceed to a final hearing listed for 6, 7 and 10 August 2020. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment, and no remedy assessment is made because the order is confined to the withdrawn complaints.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | direct disability discrimination | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Harassment | disability-related harassment | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | discrimination arising from disability | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | unauthorised deductions from wages | Withdrawn | — | — |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.