Case 3300638/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Sharif v Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300638/2021
- Decision date
- 10 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Sharif
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter of 1 June 2021 the Claimant was warned that the Tribunal was considering striking out her unfair dismissal claim because she did not have two years' service, and her breach of contract claim because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success, the sums claimed having been paid. She was invited to object by 15 June 2021. In response, by email of 13 June 2021, the Claimant said she believed she had been discriminated against because of her religious belief, but she did not advance any grounds on which the unfair dismissal or breach of contract claims could be sustained.
By letter of 6 November 2021, written at the direction of EJ Lewis, the Claimant was told that if she wished to apply to amend her claim she had to provide a list in date order with numbered paragraphs setting out the alleged discrimination. She did not reply. The Tribunal then struck out the unfair dismissal claim because it had no jurisdiction, as the Claimant lacked sufficient qualifying employment.
The breach of contract claim was also struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, the sums claimed having been paid. The judgment records no monetary award and no separate determination of a discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, the Claimant lacking sufficient qualifying employment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success; the sums claimed had been paid. | Struck out | — | — |
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.