Case 3311706/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Leena Harkat Shuayb (“C1”) Miss Sophie Birdi (“C2”) v Haringey GP Group Limited trading as Charlton House Medical Centre (“R1”) Mr Mohammed Al-Mahfuz (“R2”) Dr Hafizur Rahman (“R3”) Mr Rob Monjo (“R4”) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311706/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Leena Harkat Shuayb (“C1”) Miss Sophie Birdi (“C2”)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a reconsideration hearing on 25 April 2024, Employment Judge Tobin, sitting alone, revisited the earlier TUPE ruling in light of Sean Pong Tyres Limited v Moore [2024] EAT 1. The issue was whether, if there had been a transfer of Charlton House Medical Centre to R1 on or around 29 September 2021, liability for the claimants' claims against R2, R3 and R4 automatically transferred to R1 under TUPE.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Reconsideration only. The tribunal held that, if there had been a TUPE transfer of Charlton House Medical Centre to R1 around 29 September 2021, liability for the claims against R2, R3 and R4 did not automatically pass to R1 under TUPE, and R1 should be removed from the proceedings. This judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying discrimination or other claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- regulation 4(2)(a) TUPE
- regulation 4(2)(b) TUPE
- Sean Pong Tyres Limited v Moore [2024] EAT 1
- Doane v Wimbledon Football Club Ltd
- Sunderland City Council v Brennan 2012 ICR 1183
- Sohail v WFS Ground Handling Services Limited
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.