Case 1302706/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Wing Chan v Birmingham City Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302706/2021
- Decision date
- 26 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Knowles
- Panel members
- Mrs M Stewart, Mrs K Ahmad
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Wing Chan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims in public by hybrid hearing at Midlands West (Birmingham) on 24, 25 and 26 April 2023. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The unanimous judgment dismissed each of the claimant's direct discrimination claims. The tribunal found that the claims of direct age discrimination, direct sex discrimination, direct race discrimination, and direct discrimination because of religion or belief, each brought contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010, were not well-founded.
No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal recorded the claim as direct age discrimination contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010 and found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal recorded the claim as direct sex discrimination contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010 and found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded the claim as direct race discrimination contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010 and found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal recorded the claim as direct discrimination because of religion or belief contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010 and found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.