Case 6000815/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mahmood v National Wealth Fund Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000815/2023
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr R Webb, Ms GM Fleming
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mahmood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the respondent's failure to progress the claimant's pay review after 11 March 2022 was direct sex discrimination. It also found victimisation in the respondent's later handling of the claimant's position: the failure to progress the pay review after 27 June 2022, the immediate attempt to terminate the contract on 28 June 2022, the decision from as early as 29 July 2022 not to extend the contract, and the provision of factually incorrect feedback on 21 October 2022 from an earlier email dated 18 August 2022.
The tribunal recorded that those discrimination and victimisation acts were outside the ordinary three-month time limit, but were allowed to proceed because the tribunal considered it just and equitable to extend time. In relation to the same 21 October 2022 feedback allegation when advanced as a public interest disclosure detriment, the tribunal recorded the protected disclosure as an allegation that the Finance Director had perpetuated a culture of bullying and blaming individuals, but dismissed that complaint as out of time because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it within the primary period.
The written record says that all remaining complaints were not well founded and dismissed. It also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The extracted decision does not record any remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | By not progressing the claimant's request for a pay review after 11 March 2022, the respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment which the tribunal held was direct sex discrimination. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | By not progressing the claimant's request for a pay review after 27 June 2022, the respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment which the tribunal held was victimisation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | By seeking immediately to terminate the claimant's contract on 28 June 2022, the respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment which the tribunal held was victimisation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | By making a decision not to extend the claimant's contract from as early as 29 July 2022, later reversed, the respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment which the tribunal held was victimisation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | By providing the claimant with factually incorrect feedback on 21 October 2022, in an extract of an earlier email dated 18 August 2022, the respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment which the tribunal held was victimisation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The same 21 October 2022 feedback allegation was also advanced as a public interest disclosure complaint based on an allegation that the Finance Director had perpetuated a culture of bullying and blaming individuals; the tribunal dismissed it as out of time because it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary period. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable
- reasonably practicable
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.