Case 3312404/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sapna Shah v Gillespie Manners Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312404/2020
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Members
- Venue
- Watford Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Harris, Mr D Wharton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sapna Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Ms Shah did not make a protected disclosure within the meaning of s43B Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding meant the whistleblowing foundation of the case was not established.
The tribunal also rejected the claim that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed in contravention of s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. On the same judgment, it found that she had not been directly discriminated against on grounds of race under s13 Equality Act 2010.
The remaining race discrimination claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that Ms Shah had not been harassed related to race under s26 Equality Act 2010 and had not been victimised under s27 Equality Act 2010.
The judgment records that, with those matters concluded, the case was dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure under s43B Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was not automatically unfairly dismissed in contravention of s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal rejected the claim of direct race discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal rejected the claim of harassment related to race under s26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal rejected the victimisation claim under s27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.