Case 3306792/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306792/2021
- Decision date
- 22 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge George on 15 and 16 May 2023, conducted by CVP. The tribunal decided a preliminary issue about belief under the Equality Act 2010 rather than determining liability or remedy on the substantive claims.
The tribunal held that the claimant's belief, as a Muslim, that it is sinful to wish someone happy or merry Christmas is a protected religion or belief within the meaning of s.10 of the Equality Act 2010. No further findings on the merits of any substantive discrimination claim are recorded in this written decision.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the claimant's belief, as a Muslim, that it is sinful to wish someone happy or merry Christmas is a protected religion or belief within s.10 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.10 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.