Case 2411681/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Sayles v Hadi Law Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2411681/2019
- Decision date
- 4 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr M Smith, Mr M Stemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Sayles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Manchester on 23 October 2020 before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall, with Mr M Smith and Mr M Stemp as the non-legal panel members. The claimant, Mr L Sayles, appeared in person and the respondent, Hadi Law Ltd, was represented by counsel. The written judgment records that the claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and religious discrimination.
The tribunal dismissed all three claims. The short written record does not set out the factual findings or legal analysis in detail, and it notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing. No remedy was awarded because none of the claims succeeded. The record also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.