Case 2207187/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Saha v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited Heard in-person at London Central — 2024
- Case reference
- 2207187/2021
- Decision date
- 17 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Nonlegal
- Panel members
- Mr J Carroll, Mr P De Chaumont-Rambert
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Saha
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Ms M Saha, was employed by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited as a Financial Accountant from 11 December 2017 until her dismissal on 10 February 2023. She brought claims of equal pay, direct sex and race discrimination, harassment on grounds of race, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. The hearing took place over multiple days in March 2024 before Employment Judge Nicolle sitting with non-legal members Mr J Carroll and Mr P De Chaumont-Rambert.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed for some other substantial reason, namely an irreconcilable breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence. The Tribunal concluded the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses, the procedure followed was fair, and the Claimant's written representations had been taken into account. The Respondent's primary concerns related to the Claimant's repeated contentions that the Respondent and its external legal advisors had deliberately or fraudulently withheld or manipulated comparator pay data, contentions the Claimant continued to make notwithstanding earlier tribunal findings that the Respondent had been negligent but not dishonest in the provision of pay data.
The Tribunal dismissed all discrimination, harassment, victimisation and equal pay claims on their substantive grounds. On time limits, the Tribunal found certain race discrimination matters were out of time as discrete acts, and the Claimant provided no evidence as to why it would be just and equitable to extend time. The Tribunal recorded that the majority of the Claimant's claims were, in its view, wholly misconceived.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Equal pay claim under the Equality Act 2010; like work claim with Mr Subramanian as comparator. Claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under s.13 EQA 2010. Claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s.13 EQA 2010. Claimant identifies as of Indian origin. Claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of race under s.26 EQA 2010. Claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s.27 EQA 2010. Claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under s.94(1) ERA 1996. Tribunal found dismissal was for a potentially fair reason of some other substantial reason (irreconcilable breakdown in trust and confidence) and within the band of reasonable responses. Claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey
- some other substantial reason
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.