Case 6001971/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Khanum v Hmr Group Holdings Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001971/2024
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Khanum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant had not paid deposits that had previously been ordered. As a result, specified contentions advanced by the claimant were struck out.
The struck-out contentions concerned alleged harassment related to further alleged disabling impairments, an allegation that inability to work until a suitable chair was provided was something arising from those alleged impairments, and allegations about substantial disadvantages from PCPs and the respondent's alleged knowledge. The judgment identifies the further alleged disabling impairments in a list, but does not determine remedies or make findings on the substantive merits of the allegations.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The contention that the respondent's alleged conduct at paragraph 15.2 was harassment related to the further alleged disabling impairments was struck out because deposits previously ordered had not been paid. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The contention that the claimant's inability to work until a suitable chair was provided was something arising from the further alleged disabling impairments was struck out because deposits previously ordered had not been paid. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Contentions concerning alleged substantial disadvantages from alleged PCPs, the further alleged disabling impairments, and what the respondent ought reasonably to have known were struck out because deposits previously ordered had not been paid. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.