Mr R Ullah v Fortnum and Mason plc — 2026

Mr Ullah resigned on 6 November 2023 and remained employed during his notice period until 5 February 2024, being placed on garden leave from 31 December 2023. The Tribunal dismissed his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, direct religion or belief discrimination, and unauthorised deduction from wages. The judgment records no monetary award.

The Tribunal rejected several discrimination allegations on their facts, including the allegation that Ms Doherty used the word “Paki”, the allegation that Mr Ullah was required to give Ms Sheikh extra work, and the allegations that he was forced to work every Christmas and Easter or on Fridays and other religious holidays. It found that Ms Sheikh's probation was extended because she had been working reduced hours, and that the difference between Mr Ullah's holiday entitlement and that of Mr Aparudai and Mr Rammoddo resulted from the contractual history of longer-serving managers. The Tribunal accepted that the six-week compassionate-leave request was refused, but found that management-cover concerns were the reason and that there was no evidence that race or religion influenced the decision.

The Tribunal found that the grievance investigation lacked thoroughness, including because Ms Doherty was not interviewed, and that the claimant was given a final written warning following a disciplinary process with identified failings. It found that the grievance received only limited attention because Mr Ullah had already given notice, and that the disciplinary decision was also influenced by his impending departure. Nevertheless, it found no evidence from which to infer that either matter was because of his race or religion, and the related direct discrimination complaints failed.

The 2023 bonus was not paid because the Discretionary Bonus Scheme Guidelines excluded employees serving notice on the payment date. The Tribunal found that Mr Ullah had no contractual or legal entitlement to the £4,200 bonus, so its non-payment was neither direct race or religion discrimination nor an unauthorised deduction from wages. It also found that the date on which he commenced garden leave was agreed between the parties and was not connected to race or religion.

For constructive unfair dismissal, the only relied-upon event occurring before the resignation was the refusal of compassionate leave. Although the Tribunal found that the respondent could have handled the request better, the refusal was within a discretionary policy, was supported by an accepted operational rationale, and did not fundamentally breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The claim therefore failed; alternatively, the Tribunal found that the period before resignation, including approximately one month back at work, amounted to affirmation of the contract.

Applying the Equality Act burden of proof and comparator principles, the Tribunal found no facts supporting an inference that race or religion significantly influenced the treatment complained of; where the factual treatment occurred, it made positive findings of non-discriminatory reasons. Because no claim succeeded, it did not determine the time-limit issues.