Case 3201153/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Zaman v Catherine Chan — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201153/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Zaman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a lettings consultant for the respondent estate agency from 17 July 2019 until his employment ended on 31 January 2020. He brought claims against the director personally for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, discrimination on grounds of age, race, religion and belief, and other payments. The case was listed for a preliminary hearing and the claimant was ordered to send a remedy statement by 24 August 2020.
The claimant did not attend the 27 August hearing, did not send the remedy statement, and did not comply with later orders requiring him to explain his absence and give further details. On 21 September 2020 he replied in part, providing more information only about direct race discrimination and harassment on grounds of religion and belief, but he did not provide further details about age discrimination or other payments. He also failed to attend a further preliminary hearing on 30 November 2020 and did not provide the medical evidence that had been ordered.
At the final preliminary hearing on 16 December 2020, the claimant again did not attend and said he was unwell and awaiting a Covid test. The judge noted that this explanation was inconsistent with the claimant answering the call and speaking to the respondent's representative. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service, and struck out the remainder of the case because he was not actively pursuing it and had failed to comply with tribunal orders. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction for unfair dismissal because the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | No separate merits determination; struck out with the remainder of the case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant did not provide further details of the age discrimination claim despite tribunal orders. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant later provided some additional details for direct race discrimination, but the claim was still struck out for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment refers to discrimination on grounds of religion and belief. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The claimant provided additional details for harassment on grounds of religion and belief, but the claim was struck out with the rest of the case. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Other |
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.