Case 8000646/2024 · Employment Tribunal

ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000646/2024 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on December 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Sadia Asim v TSB Bank plc — 2024

Case reference: 8000646/2024
Decision date: 19 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Sutherland.

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000646/2024 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on December 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Sadia Asim

Respondent

TSB Bank plc

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing on 16 December 2024, Employment Judge M A Macleod dealt with Sadia Asim's application to amend her race discrimination claim against TSB Bank plc, the respondent's time-bar objection, and the respondent's strike-out application. The claimant said the later complaints arose from the same period and events she had already raised internally, and the tribunal treated the statements made at the earlier preliminary hearing as an application to add complaints 3 to 6.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The tribunal granted amendment and held any time-bar should be disapplied on a just and equitable basis. It refused strike-out for the race allegations save that complaint 3 was struck out; complaints 1, 4, 5 and 6 were allowed to proceed to the merits hearing.	Other	Race	—
Sex discrimination	Sex was added by amendment to the case in relation to complaints 2 to 6. The tribunal held those allegations should proceed on a just and equitable basis, with complaint 3 struck out only and the remaining complaints allowed to go to the merits hearing.	Other	Sex	—
Harassment	The tribunal treated the later allegations as including harassment as well as direct discrimination. It did not strike out the harassment case generally; only complaint 3 was struck out for no reasonable prospect of success, and the remaining complaints were allowed to proceed.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.