Case 4102242/2020 · Employment Tribunal
M Kearns Tribunal Members: Mr G Doherty Mr W Muir Mrs R R Bhatti v Represented by: Ms L Hart Strathclyde University Law Clinic Nuffield Health — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102242/2020
- Decision date
- 18 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mrs
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr G Doherty, Mr W Muir
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Kearns Tribunal Members: Mr G Doherty Mr W Muir Mrs R R Bhatti
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal sat in Glasgow over hearings on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 18 June 2021, with reasons delivered orally on 18 October 2021. The unanimous judgment, by Employment Judge Mrs M Kearns with lay members Mr G Doherty and Mr W Muir, records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The respondent's counterclaim was also dismissed.
The extract provided contains only the dispositive judgment and does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or legal reasoning. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unanimous judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The extract does not set out separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The unanimous judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The extract does not set out separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The unanimous judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The extract does not set out separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unanimous judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The extract does not set out separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The unanimous judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The extract does not set out separate written reasons for this claim. | 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.