Case 2302433/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Hibaq Bashir Mahamoud v Currys Group Limited (formerly DSH Retail Limited) OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302433/2020
- Decision date
- 27 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Hibaq Bashir Mahamoud
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing by CVP on 17 February 2022, Employment Judge P Britton, sitting alone, considered amendment and case-management applications in Ms Hibaq Bashir Mahamoud's claim against Currys Group Limited. The tribunal dismissed the application to amend the current claims to add whistleblowing because it was not in the interests of justice to grant it. The application to amend to bring a sex discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal, and the application to join three employees as named respondents was also dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 and schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 for the purposes of her disability-related claims. The claims that therefore proceeded were race discrimination, religious discrimination, disability discrimination, and unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
No merits findings were made on those proceeding claims at this hearing, and no remedy was determined.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The application to amend the current claims to include whistleblowing was dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied it was in the interests of justice to grant it. This was a procedural ruling, not a merits determination on a whistleblowing claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The application to amend to bring a sex discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. This was a procedural ruling, not a merits determination on sex discrimination. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |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.