Case 1304471/2015 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Respondent — 2017
- Case reference
- 1304471/2015
- Decision date
- 23 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cocks Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs DP Hill, Mrs N Gill
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Birmingham heard the case on 2-4 October 2017 before Employment Judge Cocks, with lay members Mrs DP Hill and Mrs N Gill. It recorded that the claimant appeared in person and that the respondent was represented by counsel, Mr D Leach.
The judgment upheld the claimant’s victimisation claim under sections 27 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 insofar as it related to the respondent terminating the claimant’s assignment. The written record does not set out detailed reasons for that conclusion because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the separate claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which alleged that the respondent gave prejudicial, damaging and discriminatory information about the claimant to Birmingham City Council. The decision notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Claim succeeded in relation to the claimant’s assignment being terminated by the respondent under sections 27 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the respondent gave prejudicial, damaging and discriminatory information about the claimant to Birmingham City Council. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.