Case 3314737/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Noha Mellor v University of Bedfordshire — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314737/2020
- Decision date
- 20 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Noha Mellor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing heard by telephone at Watford on 13 October 2021 before Employment Judge McNeill QC sitting alone. The claimant was Dr Noha Mellor and the respondent was the University of Bedfordshire. The hearing dealt only with case management and withdrawals of claims, not any merits findings.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s claim for direct race discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant’s claim for detriment by reason of making protected disclosures was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. No findings of fact or liability were made on those two claims.
The tribunal further stated that the claimant’s remaining claims for victimisation would proceed to a full merits hearing. No remedy was awarded in this judgment, and no legal test was set out in the short record of preliminary hearing beyond the procedural recording of the withdrawals.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claim for direct race discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant at the preliminary hearing on 13 October 2021. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim for detriment by reason of making protected disclosures was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant at the preliminary hearing on 13 October 2021. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.