Case 3204273/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Bahchevanov v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3204273/2022
- Decision date
- 23 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms T Jansen, Dr L Rylah
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Bahchevanov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the claim at the East London Hearing Centre on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 September 2024, with Employment Judge Gardiner sitting with members Ms T Jansen and Dr L Rylah.
The judgment records only the Tribunal's conclusion. It states that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that the claim was accordingly dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment states that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that the claim was dismissed; it does not give separate reasoning for this complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The short judgment states that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that the claim was dismissed; it does not give separate reasoning for this complaint. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The short judgment states that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that the claim was dismissed; it does not give separate reasoning for this complaint. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The short judgment states that none of the Claimant's complaints were well founded and that the claim was dismissed; it does not give separate reasoning for this complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.