Case 3300944/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Abbas v Slough Borough Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300944/2021
- Decision date
- 16 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Abbas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment in which no response had been received from Slough Borough Council. On that basis, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto recorded that the claimant's claims succeed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Rule 21 default judgment: no response was received from the respondent, so the claimant's claims succeeded. The judgment does not set out a separate liability analysis for this claim. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Rule 21 default judgment: no response was received from the respondent, so the claimant's claims succeeded. The judgment does not set out a separate liability analysis for this claim. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Rule 21 default judgment: no response was received from the respondent, so the claimant's claims succeeded. The judgment does not set out a separate liability analysis for this claim. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Rule 21 default judgment: no response was received from the respondent, so the claimant's claims succeeded. The judgment does not set out a separate liability analysis for this claim. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 default judgment: no response was received from the respondent, so the claimant's claims succeeded. The judgment does not set out a separate liability analysis for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.