Case 3212742/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Shah v Mazars LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 3212742/2020
- Decision date
- 11 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 1 March 2021, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay three deposits of £50 each in relation to the complaints that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments. The judgment records that the claimant did not pay those deposits.
The tribunal therefore struck out the three complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The struck-out allegations were the complaints of failing to undertake a risk assessment, failing to refer the claimant to a health professional, and failing to provide him with information about adjustments. The judgment also records that the other complaints in the list of issues were to be heard at a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | One of three reasonable adjustment complaints; struck out after the claimant did not pay the £50 deposit ordered at a preliminary hearing on 1 March 2021. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | One of three reasonable adjustment complaints; struck out after the claimant did not pay the £50 deposit ordered at a preliminary hearing on 1 March 2021. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | One of three reasonable adjustment complaints; struck out after the claimant did not pay the £50 deposit ordered at a preliminary hearing on 1 March 2021. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.