Case 2603667/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr AR Mohammed v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603667/2019
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr AR Mohammed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on the Respondent's applications under rules 37 and 39 for the claims to be struck out or made subject to deposit orders. The Tribunal held that the claims were not struck out and no deposit order was made.
The Tribunal considered that a central factual dispute was whether Mr Wrighton had called the Claimant a "funny Indian boy". It found that this was a core disputed fact which could not properly be determined without hearing and evaluating evidence, and that the alleged comment could potentially relate back to earlier comments or acts when considering whether inferences of race discrimination could be drawn.
The Tribunal also declined to strike out or order a deposit for the victimisation claim, finding that the reason for the Respondent contacting the police was a question of fact for a full hearing. It considered the strike out and deposit applications ill-advised and unreasonable, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant costs of £900 inclusive of VAT.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations were not struck out and no deposit order was made; the merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment allegation was not struck out and no deposit order was made; the merits were not determined. The judgment discusses it alongside the discrimination claims, but the precise protected characteristic for harassment is not separately set out. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was not struck out and no deposit order was made; the merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The application also concerned the Claimant's dismissal on 15 October 2020, but this preliminary judgment does not specify the legal classification of that dismissal claim. It was not struck out and no deposit order was made. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £900
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- rules 37 and 39 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330
- take the Claimant's case at its highest
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.