Case 3309625/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Murugan Shanmugam v Activate Learning — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309625/2023
- Decision date
- 7 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Bean, Dr B Von Maydell-Koch
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Murugan Shanmugam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter hearing the claims, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint together with the race and religious belief discrimination complaints. It also dismissed the two harassment complaints, one related to race and one related to religious belief.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was also found not well-founded and dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct discrimination because of race was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The complaint of direct discrimination because of religious belief was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to race was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to religious belief was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.