Case 3311375/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Marjana Begum v The London Borough of Haringey and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311375/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Annand Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Marjana Begum
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis short judgment was given at Watford by video on 11 November 2025 before Employment Judge Annand. It records that the complaints of harassment related to religion and victimisation against the Second Respondent were dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment does not contain findings on the merits of those complaints and does not award any remedy.
The Respondent's application to strike out the Claimant's claim under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 succeeded. The tribunal struck out the regulation 3 claim under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Respondent's strike-out application on victimisation was refused, but the short text does not clearly resolve the final position of any remaining victimisation complaint beyond the withdrawal and dismissal recorded in the first paragraph.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to religion against the Second Respondent was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the victimisation complaint against the Second Respondent was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant, but it also refuses the Respondent's strike-out application on the victimisation claim. The short text does not clearly state the overall final disposal, so the outcome is recorded as other. | Other | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The claim under regulation 3 of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
- regulation 3 of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
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.