Case 3202145/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hussain v Dishoom Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202145/2018
- Decision date
- 20 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms T Breslin, Ms J Owen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Hussain, who was of Bengali national origin, worked for Dishoom Limited as a chef from 26 August 2017 until his summary dismissal on 4 July 2018. The tribunal found that he had been employed initially as a Tandoori Curry Chef, later moved to the Indian Curry Section, and that he received several workplace benefits during his employment, including a pay increase to £32,000 in October 2017, a request to remain at Shoreditch rather than transfer to Kensington, and support with his immigration application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The only claim adjudicated was direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010, alleging that the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical Indian employee. Pre-dismissal issues were treated as background only. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassay v Nomura International plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.