Case 2301531/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr T Hussain, Litigation Consultant — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301531/2018
- Decision date
- 7 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issues judgment by Employment Judge Balogun sitting by CVP on 7 June 2022. The claimant, Miss C Madureira, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr T Hussain, litigation consultant. No lay members are listed, and the decision is confined to jurisdiction and strike-out issues rather than the merits of the underlying complaints.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims for want of jurisdiction because they had been presented out of time. It reached the same jurisdictional result for the harassment claim, again because it was presented out of time. No remedy was awarded on those claims.
The race discrimination and sex discrimination claims were struck out because the tribunal found that they had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment does not record any separate monetary award, legal test, or further merits findings beyond those preliminary determinations.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.