Case 2600818/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Munir v RMR Electrical Solutions Limited and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600818/2020
- Decision date
- 4 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms T Munir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 4 June 2020, Employment Judge Adkinson, sitting alone and considering the case on the papers, made a judgment on withdrawal in Ms T Munir's claims against RMR Electrical Solutions Limited and Mr R Rose. The tribunal dismissed the claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment because the claimant had withdrawn them.
The tribunal also dealt with the breach of contract claim only insofar as it concerned repayment of a loan. That part was marked withdrawn, but it was not dismissed on withdrawal because the tribunal was satisfied it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. The reason given was that the claimant wished to pursue that claim in the County Court, which had jurisdiction.
The judgment stated that this order did not affect any of the claimant's other claims or any other orders already made in respect of them, and that those other claims would be heard and decided in the normal way. No merits findings or monetary remedy were recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination because of sex; the tribunal said the claim was dismissed because the claimant had withdrawn it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment because of sex; the tribunal said the claim was dismissed because the claimant had withdrawn it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract only so far as it concerned repayment of a loan; marked withdrawn and not dismissed on withdrawal because the claimant wished to pursue the claim in the County Court, which had jurisdiction. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.