Case 1301130/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1301130/2019
- Decision date
- 14 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
- Panel members
- Mrs I Fox, Mr T Liburd
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract. It also found that the respondent's failure to provide PMVA refresher training was a breach of contract.
On the discrimination claims, the tribunal upheld direct race discrimination for allegations (e), (g), (n), (o) and (t), and upheld victimisation for allegation (g). It rejected the remaining direct race and victimisation allegations, but recorded that some of the rejected direct race allegations were caused by the race discrimination at (e) and (g) and the victimisation at (g).
The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for the discrimination and victimisation allegations. It adjourned remedy to a further hearing, including consideration of personal injury damages and whether to order a financial penalty under section 12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race allegations (e), (g), (n), (o) and (t) were well-founded. Allegations (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (j) and (s) were not well-founded. Allegations (h), (i), (k), (l), (m parts 1 and 2), (p), (q), (r) and (u) were not well-founded but the tribunal recorded that they were caused by the race discrimination at (e) and (g) and the victimisation at (g). | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegation (g) was well-founded. Allegations (h), (r) and (q) were not well-founded. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's failure to provide PMVA refresher training was found to be a breach of contract. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.