Case 3315304/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. Smakaj (the claimant’s wife) For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3315304/2020
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr. S. Holford, Miss. W Smith
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs. Smakaj (the claimant’s wife) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Cambridge on 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 October 2022 and gave a unanimous judgment on 28 October 2022, sent to the parties on 5 December 2022. The claimant was represented by Mrs. Smakaj and the respondent by Ms. Kaye, counsel.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's unfair dismissal claim and found that he was not unfairly dismissed. It also rejected the race discrimination claims, finding that the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant because of race and did not harass him in relation to race.
The tribunal also rejected the wrongful dismissal claim. The judgment states that all claims were dismissed. No remedy was awarded or quantified in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the respondent did not harass the claimant related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed. | 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.