Case 6013151/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Sehrish Mahmood v Catch22 Charity Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013151/2025
- Decision date
- 6 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Sehrish Mahmood
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt East London Employment Tribunals on 3 June 2025, Employment Judge C Lewis heard the Claimant’s application for interim relief under sections 128-129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in connection with her claim for automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal recorded that the application failed and was dismissed. No financial award was made, and the judgment does not record any split of remedy because interim relief was not granted.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the extracted judgment contains no further findings or factual reasoning beyond the dismissal of the interim relief application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment determines an application for interim relief under sections 128-129 ERA 1996 in relation to a claim for automatic unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.128-129 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.