Toomey Motor Group Ltd

Case Summary

Ms Begum, a Bangladeshi national, claimed direct race discrimination and victimisation following withdrawal of a job offer and subsequent dismissal from Toomey Motor Group Limited. The tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove facts supporting discrimination or victimisation, and that the respondent's explanation for dismissal (persistent lateness) was not tainted by either.

The claimant failed to prove facts from which the tribunal could decide that the dismissal was direct race discrimination or victimisation. The tribunal was satisfied that the respondent's explanation for dismissal—the claimant's persistent lateness—was not tainted by discrimination or victimisation, and there was no evidential basis for inferring otherwise.

• •Direct race discrimination based on Bangladeshi nationality
• •Withdrawal of job offer
• •Negative reaction to nationality disclosure
• •Questioning of right to work
• •Blocking of contact
• •Summary dismissal
• •Victimisation following protected act complaint
• •Time limits under Equality Act 2010 section 123

1 of 12 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms S Begum Respondent: Toomey Motor Group Limited Heard at: London East Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 24 and 25 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge Brewer Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr M Hamid, Counsel JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The claimant’s claim for direct race discrimination fails and is dismissed. 2. The claimant’s claim for victimisation fails and is dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1. This case was listed for a 3-day hearing. In the event we concluded the evidence and submissions on day 1 and I delivered an oral judgment on day 2. 2. The claimant represented herself. She had previously been assisted by a solicitor but for reasons which are unclear that is no longer the case. The claimant had applied for this hearing to be postponed but that application did not succeed. 3. The respondent was represented by Mr Hamid. 4. I heard oral evidence from Mr Ammar Khan, General Sales Manager in Basildon, and Mr Terry Sadler, Operations Manager. They had provided written witness statements. 2 of 12 5. I also heard oral evidence from the claimant. She had not provided a written witness statement, but she was content for her grounds of complaint to stand as her evidence in chief and I allowed her to supplement that when she gave evidence. 6. I had a bundle of documents running to 97 pages and I heard brief submissions from both parties, all of which I have taken into account in reaching my decision. Issues 7. The agreed issues were as follows. Time limits 7.1. Given the date the claim form was presented and the dates of early conciliation, any complaint about something that happened before 6 July 2024 may not have been brought in time. 7.2. Were the discrimination complaints made within the time limit i…