Case 1303221/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2017

Case reference: 1303221/2017
Decision date: 11 December 2017
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Henry Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing at Watford on 15 October 2018, Employment Judge Henry considered whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under section 144 of the Equality Act 2010 to determine Mrs G Cole's complaints of direct discrimination and harassment against Elders' Voice.

The tribunal found that the parties had reached a settlement with the assistance of a Conciliation Officer on 11 December 2017. The judgment records that the claimant was legally represented during the negotiation and subsequent agreement, and that there was a valid ACAS conciliated agreement for the purposes of section 144(4)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.

On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claimant's Equality Act complaints for direct discrimination or harassment against Elders Voice. The claimant's claim against Elders Voice was dismissed. No remedy was awarded or assessed in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment identifies a complaint of direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 but does not state the protected characteristic in the extracted text.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	The judgment identifies a complaint of harassment under the Equality Act 2010 but does not state the protected characteristic in the extracted text.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.