Case 3303048/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Farah Janjua v Harvey Jones Ltd (in administration) and 2 others — 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 namedClaimant
Ms Farah Janjua
Key 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 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination not well-founded and fails. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination not well-founded and fails. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination not well-founded and fails. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Sexual harassment not well-founded and fails. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex not well-founded and fails. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation not well-founded and fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 109 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.