Case 2216684/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Shauri v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited RECORD OF A HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216684/2023
- Decision date
- 10 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Shauri
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Joffe sat alone because lay members were unavailable. Mr H Shauri brought claims of direct race discrimination, victimisation, unlawful deduction of wages, unlawful deduction of statutory sick pay, and holiday pay against Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited arising from events at 4PQS and later S3 on the King's Cross estate. The tribunal heard evidence about the lost-key investigation, the client removal from 4PQS, the move to S3, complaints about hats and night shifts, and payment issues, but it dismissed all claims.
On victimisation, the tribunal found that the 11 December 2022 email complaining of bullying and harassment was a protected act, and that the 24 July 2023 grievance alleging unfair treatment because of race was also a protected act. It did not accept that the 14 July 2023 email was a protected act. The tribunal accepted that some matters could amount to detriments, including the refusal of night-shift-only work, the hat issue, and aspects of the holiday handling, but it held that the respondent's treatment was not because of the protected acts.
On direct race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that Mr Shauri is Black African, but found no facts from which it could infer less favourable treatment because of race. It accepted the respondent's explanations that the claimant was moved after the client requested removal, that night-shift-only work was not available, and that the hat issue required medical justification for an indoor uniform exception. It also found that the comparator evidence about Mr Neto, Mr Gorzedowski, and others was insufficient.
The claimant also said he had only received 16 days rather than 20 days of holiday in early 2024, and the tribunal discussed the holiday requests and holiday issue in its findings, but it did not record a separate monetary award. The non-payment of wages point was treated as compensation linked to the discrimination and victimisation claims and was dismissed when those claims failed, while the statutory sick pay complaint was dismissed because it was not sufficiently particularised for findings. Having dismissed the substantive claims, the tribunal did not go on to determine limitation issues.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted that the 11 December 2022 email and the 24 July 2023 grievance were protected acts, but it did not accept that the respondent's later conduct was because of those acts. It found some alleged detriments, including the night-shift and hat issues and aspects of the holiday handling, but dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Mr Shauri was found to be Black African, but the tribunal held that he had not shown facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. It accepted the respondent's explanations about the client removal from 4PQS, the lack of a night-shift-only role, and the hat policy, and found the comparator evidence insufficient. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant said he was entitled to 20 days' holiday and had received only 16 days in early 2024. The judgment discussed the holiday requests and the holiday issue in the victimisation analysis, but it did not record a standalone holiday-pay award or a separate quantified finding. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's overtime/non-payment of wages point was treated by the tribunal as a compensation issue linked to the discrimination and victimisation complaints rather than a separate deduction claim. It was dismissed when those claims failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The statutory sick pay complaint was not sufficiently particularised with dates or amounts for the tribunal to make findings. It was therefore dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.136 EqA burden of proof
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More
- s.27 EqA protected act and detriment
- EHRC Employment Code paras 9.8-9.9
- Pathan v South London Islamic Centre
- Essex County Council v Jarrett
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Greg May (Carpet Fitters and Contractors) Ltd v Dring
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.