Case 3319494/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Athif Khokhar v Telefonica UK Ltd – 1st Mr Matthew Lockwood – 2nd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3319494/2019
- Decision date
- 23 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs J Beard, Mr P English
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Athif Khokhar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford, Employment Judge Bedeau sat with lay members Mrs J Beard and Mr P English and heard Mr Athif Khokhar's claims against Telefonica UK Ltd and Mr Matthew Lockwood on 19 to 23 April 2021. The tribunal held that the claim of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it, and it also held that the claim of direct discrimination because of religion or belief was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. It also states that written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made at the hearing or within 14 days of the written decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the claim of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written record says reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are provided in this record. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal held the claim of direct discrimination because of religion or belief was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written record says reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are provided in this record. | 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.