Case 2221564/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Patel, counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2221564/2024
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- N Sandler, T Shaah
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Patel, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the complaints of direct discrimination because of sex, direct discrimination because of sexual orientation, and unauthorised deduction from wages had been withdrawn by the claimant. Those complaints were dismissed pursuant to Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The Tribunal further stated that all other complaints in the claim were not well-founded. The entire claim therefore failed and was dismissed. The judgment does not give a remedy award or a detailed reasons section.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct discrimination because of sex was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed pursuant to Rule 51. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct discrimination because of sexual orientation was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed pursuant to Rule 51. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed pursuant to Rule 51. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The listing categories include disability discrimination. The judgment does not set out particulars, but states that all other complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The listing categories include unfair dismissal. The judgment does not set out particulars, but states that all other complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The listing categories include victimisation. The judgment does not set out particulars, but states that all other complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.