Case 2300825/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Not represented For the v Ms Hanmer (solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300825/2023
- Decision date
- 19 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Ms C Chaudhuri, Mr S Huggins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London South before Employment Judge Tueje, with members Ms C Chaudhuri and Mr S Huggins, and heard the case on 12, 13 and 14 August 2024. The claimant, Syed Imran Shah, was not represented; the respondent was represented by Ms Hanmer, solicitor.
In its unanimous judgment dated 19 August 2024, the tribunal held that the complaint of direct sex, race and religious belief discrimination was not well-founded. It dismissed the complaint in full. The extracted judgment does not set out further factual findings or remedy reasoning beyond that conclusion.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct sex discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct religious belief discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.