Case 3311198/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Muhammad v Stericycle SRCL Ltd and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 3311198/2023
Decision date: 8 November 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anstis
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Ms A Crosby, Mr F Wright

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr M Muhammad

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's race discrimination and sex discrimination complaints. The written record also states that the claimant's other claims were dismissed on withdrawal, but it does not itemise those claims in the judgment text.

The tribunal found that the second respondent, Shred-It Ltd, unfairly dismissed the claimant.

By majority, the tribunal found that the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct. It held that it was just and equitable to reduce both the compensatory award and the basic award by 75% because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal, but the written record does not set out any final monetary figures.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Race	—
Sex discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The written record groups this with the claimant's other claims as withdrawn.	Withdrawn	Religion or belief	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The written record groups this with the claimant's other claims as withdrawn.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The second respondent, Shred-It Ltd, was found to have unfairly dismissed the claimant. By majority, the tribunal found the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct and reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 75%.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.