Case 3306691/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hanif v Costco Wholesale (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306691/2019
- Decision date
- 8 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr S Bury, Mr P Maclean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hanif
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was, at the material time, a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 as a result of PTSD.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed by the respondent, and his unfair dismissal claim failed. It also dismissed all claims of race discrimination and disability discrimination. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was not constructively dismissed and that his claim of unfair dismissal fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims of race discrimination all fail and are dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims of disability discrimination all fail and are dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.