Case 2501571/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Mpame v Al-Murad DIY Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501571/2022
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Members
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
- Panel members
- Mrs S Don, Mr S Moules
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Mpame
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Mpame brought proceedings against Al Murad DIY Limited in case 2501571/2022. The hearing took place at Newcastle CFCTC on 27 March 2023 before Employment Judge Arullendran, with Mrs S Don and Mr S Moules as the lay members. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Ms Afshan Hashmi.
The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that all the claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, as amended. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories for this case reference; the written judgment itself states only that all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories for this case reference; the written judgment itself states only that all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories for this case reference; the written judgment itself states only that all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.