Case 6014505/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T R Magara v Manchester Abattoir Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6014505/2025
- Decision date
- 24 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T R Magara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private video hearing in Manchester on 13 July 2026, Employment Judge Slater ruled that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider Mr T R Magara's Equality Act 2010 claims against Manchester Abattoir Limited. This included claims added by amendment at that hearing. The ruling did not decide the merits of those claims.
The Tribunal dismissed the non-Equality Act claims because it lacked jurisdiction to consider them. The written judgment does not identify the individual claim types or explain the grounds for the jurisdiction rulings. Full reasons were given orally at the hearing. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Tribunal confirmed jurisdiction over the Equality Act 2010 claims, including those added by amendment on 13 July 2026. Their merits were not decided. These claims are grouped because the judgment does not specify individual claim types or protected characteristics. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The non-Equality Act claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. These claims are grouped because the judgment does not identify their individual types. | 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.