Case 3303048/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Farah Janjua v Harvey Jones Ltd (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303048/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr J Appleton, Ms S Hughes
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Shastri-Hurst with members Mr J Appleton and Ms S Hughes dismissed all of the claimant's complaints. The Tribunal found that the claims of direct age, race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment related to sex and victimisation were all not well-founded.
In relation to dismissal at the end of probation, the Tribunal found that the decision-maker was Mr Woolsgrove (the CEO) and that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's performance, not any protected act. The Tribunal rejected the claimant's submission that comments by Ms Mayell on 1 December 2022 reflected the dismissing officer's reasoning. Allegations relating to the conduct of Mr Deverell, including the use of words such as 'crap', 'fault' and 'bullshit' between 21 and 30 September 2022, were not found to be related to the claimant's age, race or sex, nor to amount to victimisation.
No time limit issues were determined as all substantive claims failed. PDF text was truncated; some intermediate findings of fact were not fully visible.
Claims and outcomes
6 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.