's actions unreasonable and if so did that shift the burden .Much depends on the precise nature of any case. It is important not to conflate the reasons given for the treatment with the explanations. The tribunal has to consider whether the protected characteristic was the reason for the

Since 2017, 's actions unreasonable and if so did that shift the burden .Much depends on the precise nature of any case. It is important not to conflate the reasons given for the treatment with the explanations. The tribunal has to consider whether the protected characteristic was the reason for the has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.

Indexed: 23 September 2026

Total cases: 1
Total awarded against: £0
Largest award: —
Most common claim: Race discrimination

Cases by claim type

1 distinct category

#	Claim type	Cases	Relative share
01	Race discrimination	1

All cases

1 case · page 1 of 1 · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Jurisdiction	Claimant	Claim types	Award
8001901/2024	14 August 2026	Scotland	Mr J Katkoria	Race discrimination	—

Methodology

Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text, and a second LLM-assisted pass adds per-claim outcomes, key findings, and any compensation awarded. Many UK tribunal decisions are liability-only — the remedy is set at a later hearing — so a case can correctly show an outcome with no award figure. See how the data is built.

's actions unreasonable and if so did that shift the burden .Much depends on the precise nature of any case. It is important not to conflate the reasons given for the treatment with the explanations. The tribunal has to consider whether the protected characteristic was the reason for the — employment tribunal cases | Tribunal Watch