Case 3313490/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Mughal v Carlisle Support Services Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313490/2023
- Decision date
- 5 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Mughal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard claims by Mr E Mughal against Carlisle Support Services Group Ltd at Watford from 7 to 10 July 2025. The written judgment records four complaints: direct race discrimination, direct religious discrimination, harassment related to race, and harassment related to religion.
Each complaint was found not well-founded and dismissed. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested; the written record supplied does not set out the tribunal's reasoning beyond the outcomes.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written judgment records that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The written judgment records that the complaint of direct religious discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment records that the complaint of harassment related to race was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment records that the complaint of harassment related to religion was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.