Case 2300958/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr F Aliyu v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 2300958/2021
Decision date: 2 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Abbott
Venue: London South
Panel members: Mrs F Whiting, Mr S Townsend

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr F Aliyu

Respondent

Tesco Stores Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal, sitting at London South Employment Tribunal in Croydon from 28 November to 2 December 2022, heard claims by Mr F Aliyu against Tesco Stores Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP.

The unanimous judgment was that all of the claimant's claims were dismissed. The dismissed claims were for victimisation, race discrimination, harassment, public interest disclosure detriment, unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay. The short judgment does not set out further factual findings, legal reasoning, or any remedy award.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Victimisation	The judgment lists victimisation among the dismissed claims but does not specify the protected act or characteristic in the extracted text; race is inferred from the accompanying race discrimination claim and listing context.	Dismissed	Race	—
Race discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The judgment lists harassment among the dismissed claims but does not expressly state the protected characteristic for that harassment claim in the extracted text; race is inferred from the accompanying race discrimination claim and listing context.	Dismissed	Race	—
Whistleblowing	The judgment describes this as a public interest disclosure detriment claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The judgment describes this as an unpaid holiday pay claim.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.