Case 1302139/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Fields, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302139/2022
- Decision date
- 21 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Fields, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Midlands West on 19 January 2024 before Employment Judge Harding. The tribunal considered whether the claimant's stated belief amounted to a protected philosophical belief for the purposes of section 10 of the Equality Act.
The tribunal held that the claimant did have such a protected belief. The belief identified was a belief in living a homeopathic lifestyle and in bodily autonomy, in particular the right to determine what medications or vaccinations he should have.
No substantive liability findings, dismissal findings, or remedy award are recorded in the extracted decision. The judgment is confined to the preliminary protected-belief issue and records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claimant's belief in living a homeopathic lifestyle and bodily autonomy, including the right to determine what medications or vaccinations he should have, was a philosophical belief protected under section 10 of the Equality Act. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 10 Equality Act
- philosophical belief
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.
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.