Case 2206382/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Dhir v HUGO BOSS UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206382/2021
- Decision date
- 12 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs N Chavna, Mrs B Hicks
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Dhir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham on 9, 10, 11 and 12 May 2023 before Employment Judge Kenward, Mrs N Chavna and Mrs B Hicks. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The tribunal gave its reasons orally and stated that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also dismissed the discrimination claim as not well-founded. The extracted judgment does not set out the underlying factual reasons in writing, only the final outcome of each claim.
The claim for notice pay was also found not well-founded and dismissed. The unlawful deductions from wages claim had previously been withdrawn and was dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records this only as a 'Claim of discrimination'. The race classification is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded in the judgment as a claim for notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says this claim had previously been withdrawn and was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
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.