Case 2403461/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Tazeen Hasan v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2403461/2024
- Decision date
- 3 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tazeen Hasan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the claimant’s race and religion harassment complaints at list items 11.4.1 and 11.4.2. The first allegation was that in December 2023 Lorna Radcliffe mouthed the words “I’m watching you” and made a hand gesture towards the claimant, witnessed by Nathan Gray. The second was that in early January 2024 Nathan Gray mimicked the claimant’s voice while she was on the phone to a customer, repeating words she had said.
The tribunal held that those complaints had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out. Oral reasons were given at the preliminary hearing, and written reasons were set out in the Record of Preliminary Hearing and Case Management Summary sent to the parties.
The judgment records that the claimant’s other complaints of race and religion discrimination harassment proceed to final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal struck out the race harassment complaints at list items 11.4.1 and 11.4.2 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal struck out the religion or belief harassment complaints at list items 11.4.1 and 11.4.2 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.