Case 2600656/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sagheer Hanif v St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Record of an Attended Hearing at the Employment Tribunal — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600656/2023
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Members
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
- Panel members
- Miss J C Rawlins, Miss L Lowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sagheer Hanif
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was a GP speciality trainee employed by the Respondent from 5 August 2020. The claims arose from a complaint made by a doctor at Queen's Medical Centre in March 2022 about the Claimant's conduct while accompanying his nephew, who had Lafora disease, to the Emergency Department. After receiving the complaint and updates from the Police, the Respondent imposed practice restrictions from 28 March 2022, reviewed them periodically, and later lifted them after the Police took no further action and the Claimant provided reflections. The Respondent then dealt with the matter informally by issuing a letter of advice on 3 November 2022, and a further educational meeting followed on 24 November 2022.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim based on the Respondent's handling of the March 2022 complaint, restrictions, advice letter, and later meeting. The Tribunal found no evidence that the treatment was because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim. The Claimant said he would have been treated differently as a white female, but the Tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Associated direct disability discrimination claim said to arise from the Claimant caring for his nephew with Lafora disease. The Tribunal found no evidence that any treatment by the Respondent was because of that association. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim related to race and sex. The Tribunal found the Respondent's conduct was not unwanted conduct related to race or sex and did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Standalone Article 8 complaint under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine a free-standing HRA claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- Efobi v Royal Mail Ltd
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
- Coleman v Attridge Law
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.