Case 3302911/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Mohamed v Grocery Delivery E-Services UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302911/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Mohamed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 23 October 2025 at Reading before Employment Judge George, the Tribunal considered the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint and a separate notice pay claim. The claimant appeared in person, the respondent was represented by a solicitor, and an interpreter was provided in Somali.
The Tribunal found that the unfair complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and said that it may not proceed. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made in this decision.
The notice pay claim was not dismissed at this stage. The Tribunal directed that it would proceed to a final hearing, listed for 2 March 2026 at 2.00 pm in person at Reading before an employment judge.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the unfair complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint under Rule 28(3). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The notice pay claim was not finally determined in this decision; it was allowed to proceed to a final hearing listed for 2 March 2026 at Reading. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 28(3)
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.