Case 2302360/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Rehman v Unilever UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302360/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Rehman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of discrimination and harassment on the grounds of race and religion, together with a claim for "other payments", were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant.
The judgment did not determine the merits of the remaining unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the unfair dismissal claim would proceed to a later hearing, with the date to be notified in due course.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment says the complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment says the complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to harassment on the grounds of race and religion; it is not fully explicit in the extract whether separate harassment complaints were pleaded for each ground. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to harassment on the grounds of race and religion; it is not fully explicit in the extract whether separate harassment complaints were pleaded for each ground. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim for "other payments" without identifying the legal basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.