Case 2302598/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Shiri v Brooke Homes Developments Ltd (in corporate voluntary arrangement) and 3 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302598/2017
- Decision date
- 11 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mr N Shanks, Ms J Cook
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr A Shiri
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr A Shiri’s complaints of direct race discrimination, victimisation, public interest disclosure detriment and unfair dismissal were not well-founded. It therefore dismissed the claim against all respondents: Brooke Homes Developments Ltd (in corporate voluntary arrangement), Mr P Oatway, Mr J Webb and Brooke Homes Logistics Ltd.
The case was heard remotely by CVP at Croydon on 11 March 2021 before Judge Brian Doyle, Mr N Shanks and Ms J Cook. The written record states that reasons for the judgment had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days; no separate reasoned findings or remedy award are set out in the extract.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant’s victimisation complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to a public interest disclosure detriment complaint and dismisses it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded. | 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.