Case 2304997/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. K. Shah v Home Office — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304997/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Sitting
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms. N. Murphy, Mr. R. Spry-Shute
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. K. Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hybrid hearing on 1 July 2024 at London South, Employment Judge Sudra sat with Ms. N. Murphy and Mr. R. Spry-Shute. The judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon withdrawal in case numbers 2304997/2020 and 2303280/2020.
The extracted text does not set out the substantive claims or any merits findings, and it records no remedy. The disposal is therefore procedural only, with no determination on the underlying issues.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The extracted judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon withdrawal, but does not itemise this specific claim head; category taken from the case context. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The extracted judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon withdrawal, but does not itemise this specific claim head; category taken from the case context. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The extracted judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon withdrawal, but does not itemise this specific claim head; category taken from the case context. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The extracted judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon withdrawal, but does not itemise this specific claim head; category taken from the case context. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon withdrawal, but does not itemise this specific claim head; category taken from the case context. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.