Case 3312342/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Hedges v Mohammad Nahaboo — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312342/2023
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Hedges
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant's claim should be struck out because the respondent said it had been settled by a signed agreement dated 25 March 2024. The judge stated that the question for the hearing was only whether there had been a binding settlement, not the wider matters raised by the parties about each other's conduct.
The tribunal held that the agreement did not meet the requirements for a settlement of statutory employment law rights. In particular, it did not relate to a particular complaint or claim, did not name a legal adviser in the agreement, and did not state that the statutory settlement agreement conditions under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or Equality Act 2010 were satisfied. The respondent's application to strike out the claim was dismissed and the claim continues.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records a race discrimination listing category but decides only the respondent's application to strike out the claim on the basis of alleged settlement. The application was dismissed and the claim continues; the merits were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records an unlawful deduction from wages listing category but decides only the respondent's application to strike out the claim on the basis of alleged settlement. The application was dismissed and the claim continues; the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records a Working Time Regulations listing category but decides only the respondent's application to strike out the claim on the basis of alleged settlement. The application was dismissed and the claim continues; the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s203 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s203(2)(f) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s203(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s147 Equality Act 2010
- s147(3) 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.