Mr M I Shaikh v Inspired Property Management Ltd: 3303422/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3303422/2022

Between

Mr M I ShaikhClaimant

Inspired Property Management LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Quill

Date 12 May 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]All complaints of direct discrimination and/or harassment where the relevant protected characteristic was “age” are dismissed on withdrawal.

[2]Taking account of early conciliation, any complaint of contravention of the Equality Act 2010 ("EQA"), provided it was a complaint included in the claim form presented on 16 March 2022, is in time provided it relates to an act or omission occurring between 4 November 2021 and 16 March 2022 (including acts / omissions which commenced earlier than that, but continued until at least 4 November 2021). Judgment: Page 1 of 3

[3]As a result of paragraph 2, the following EQA complaints (only) in the list of issues are in time. 3.1. Items 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, but only to the extent that the complaint alleges that there was a policy of treating Caucasian candidates preferentially, or BAME candidates worse, and not to the extent that it relates specifically to the appointment of Amanda Woodgate in August 2021. 3.2. Item 3.3.12 3.3. Item 3.3.14 3.4. Item 4.1.1 3.5. Item 5.3.2, but only to the extent that the allegation is that there was no investigation into the 3 September 2021 grievance allegations, and not to the extent that the complaint relates to non-investigation following alleged discussion with Helena Inman in March/April 2021 or following alleged discussion with Jen Irvine on 16 August 2021.

[4]The other EQA complaints (including those added by amendment in November 2025) are all out of time, and it is not just and equitable to extend time. Those complaints are dismissed.

[5]The complaints of direct discrimination that were in time (3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.12, 3.3.14), and where the relevant protected characteristic was race, religion or sex fail and are dismissed.

[6]The complaint of harassment that was in time (4.1.1) where the relevant protected characteristic was race fails and is dismissed. For the avoidance of doubt, to the extent that that allegation is said to be related or sex or religion, it also fails and is dismissed.

[7]The complaints of victimisation that were in time fail and are dismissed.

[8]The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to holiday pay (section 7 of list of issues) fails and is dismissed.

[9]Regardless of whether they are in time or out of time (which has not been decided), the complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to car mileage (section 8 of list of issues) fail and are dismissed.

[10]The effective date of termination was no later than Monday 19 February 2024. The time limit for the complaint of unfair dismissal expired no later than 18 May 2024. It was reasonably practicable for the complaint of unfair dismissal to have been presented by 18 May 2024. The unfair dismissal complaint is out of time and is dismissed. Judgment: Page 2 of 3

[11]The Claimant’s termination of employment (effected by his 18 February 2024 email) was not a dismissal. That is, the circumstances did not amount to what is sometimes referred to as a “constructive dismissal”. Approved by: