Case 2409798/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Afridi v Pennine Acute Hospital NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409798/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms S Howarth, Ms H Sheard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Afridi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 23, 24, 25 and 26 January 2023 before Employment Judge Cookson sitting with Ms S Howarth and Ms H Sheard. The unanimous judgment recorded that the claimant, Dr M Afridi, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Gibson, solicitor.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim of indirect discrimination on grounds of religious belief contrary to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010. The extracted record does not include written reasons for that dismissal, only the formal disposal, and it notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim. No monetary award was made, and the judgment does not record any separate remedy findings or apportionment between claims in the written extract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal recorded a claim of indirect discrimination on grounds of religious belief contrary to s.19 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed it. The extracted judgment gives no written reasons beyond the disposal, noting that oral reasons were given at the hearing. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim. The extracted judgment records the outcome only and does not set out written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.19 Equality Act 2010
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.