Case 3305823/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Harahap v Observatory Southeast Asia Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305823/2021
- Decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Harahap
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Reading on 9 May 2023 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, with Mrs A Harahap appearing in person and Observatory Southeast Asia Limited represented by Mr S Chang and Dr P Thum. The only recorded substantive determination is that the Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaints.
No merits issues were decided in the written record. The judgment is a one-page preliminary hearing decision and does not set out findings on liability, compensation, or any separate claim-by-claim outcome.
The written note also records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment is a preliminary hearing record only. The Tribunal recorded that it had territorial jurisdiction to consider this complaint; it did not determine the merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment is a preliminary hearing record only. The Tribunal recorded that it had territorial jurisdiction to consider this complaint; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment is a preliminary hearing record only. The Tribunal recorded that it had territorial jurisdiction to consider this complaint; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment is a preliminary hearing record only. The Tribunal recorded that it had territorial jurisdiction to consider this complaint; it did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a preliminary hearing record only. The Tribunal recorded that it had territorial jurisdiction to consider this complaint; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment is a preliminary hearing record only. The Tribunal recorded that it had territorial jurisdiction to consider this complaint; it did not determine the merits. | Other |
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.