Case 2411732/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hussain v United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411732/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms F Crane, Mr A Wells
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hussain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant brought allegations concerning disability discrimination and race discrimination against United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory Limited. The hearing took place by video before Employment Judge M Butler, Ms F Crane and Mr A Wells.
The judgment states that the allegations of discrimination arising from disability, direct disability discrimination, direct race discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments all failed and were dismissed. The judgment also states, for the avoidance of doubt, that all claims in the case failed and were dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not set out findings of fact, legal analysis, or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that allegations of discrimination arising from disability and direct disability discrimination all fail and are dismissed. Written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that allegations of direct race discrimination all fail and are dismissed. Written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the allegation that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments fails and is dismissed. Written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.