Case 3301763/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bulu Miah v Teleperformance limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3301763/2024
- Decision date
- 30 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bulu Miah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Alliott heard the case at Watford Employment Tribunal on 17, 18 and 19 March 2026. The claimant, Mr Bulu Miah, appeared in person and the respondent, Teleperformance UK Ltd, was represented by Ms Sarah-Jane Lundy, HR Manager.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination claims, identified in the judgment as direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. It also dismissed the claimant's unauthorised deductions of wages and breach of contract claims.
The written judgment records only the outcome. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested under the tribunal procedure described in the judgment. No remedy award or monetary figure is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as an unauthorised deductions of wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.