Case 6021959/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mubin v The Bury Black Pudding Co Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021959/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mubin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 24 July 2025, Employment Judge M Butler considered the claimant Mr M Mubin's discrimination claims against The Bury Black Pudding Co Limited. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was held by CVP and that the claimant was self-represented, while the respondent was represented by Mrs A Niaz-Dickinson of Counsel.
The tribunal struck out the claim of indirect religious discrimination under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, finding that it had no reasonable prospects of success. It also struck out the claim of direct race discrimination under the same rule for the same reason.
The judgment stated that, for the avoidance of doubt, there were no remaining claims in the case. The written record also noted that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim of indirect religious discrimination under Rule 38 as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim of direct race discrimination under Rule 38 as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.