Case 2302312/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ferrario, Counsel For the v Mr Chaudhry, solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302312/2019
- Decision date
- 25 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ferrario, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 25 March 2021 before Employment Judge Harrington sitting alone, the tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend her claim. The application sought to add claims of automatic unfair dismissal, public interest disclosure detriment and dismissal, breaches of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that the application was not well founded and dismissed it.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant's existing claims of race discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments), notice pay, holiday pay and other arrears of pay would proceed to a full merits hearing. No findings were made on the merits of those claims and no remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's application to amend was dismissed so far as it sought to add an automatic unfair dismissal claim; no merits finding was made on dismissal itself. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant's application to amend was dismissed so far as it sought to add a public interest disclosure detriment and dismissal claim; no merits finding was made on the substance of that claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claimant's application to amend was dismissed so far as it sought to add breaches of the Working Time Regulations 1998; no merits finding was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant's application to amend was dismissed so far as it sought to add a victimisation claim contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010; no merits finding was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.