Case 3314862/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kamran Hussain v United Parcel Service Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314862/2019
- Decision date
- 26 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kamran Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Woffenden issued a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52 on 26 August 2020 in the case of Mr Kamran Hussain against United Parcel Service Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant withdrew complaints of race discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, disability discrimination and sex discrimination, together with claims for holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments.
Those complaints were dismissed following the withdrawal. The text contains no substantive findings on liability, no analysis of the underlying facts, and no award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed following claimant withdrawal; the judgment records no merits findings. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed following claimant withdrawal; the judgment records no merits findings. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed following claimant withdrawal; the judgment records no merits findings. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed following claimant withdrawal; the judgment records no merits findings. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment groups holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments together and dismisses them following claimant withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.