Case 3301182/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Khan v Shoosmiths LLP and and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301182/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr N Khan
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Reading on 22 August 2022, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto struck out the claimant's claim. The written record states that the claimant's conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable and that it was not possible to have a fair hearing.
The decision is a short oral-record judgment and does not contain findings on the merits of the pleaded causes of action. It records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written record states that the claimant's claim was struck out in general terms; it does not separately analyse this cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written record states that the claimant's claim was struck out in general terms; it does not separately analyse this cause of action. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written record states that the claimant's claim was struck out in general terms; it does not separately analyse this cause of action. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the claimant's claim was struck out in general terms; it does not separately analyse this cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written record states that the claimant's claim was struck out in general terms; it does not separately analyse this cause of action. | 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.
- 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.