Case 2301790/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Desai v NCG Corporation — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301790/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Desai
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at London South by CVP on 4 September 2025, Employment Judge Rice-Birchall dealt with the claimant's complaints of sex discrimination, race discrimination and breach of contract. Those three complaints were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment also records an unspecified complaint as regards TUPE. That complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. The note at the end of the judgment states that the final hearing listed for 24-28 November 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment records an unspecified TUPE complaint as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
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.