Case 1305185/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Gohil v Continental Automotive Trading UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305185/2021
- Decision date
- 29 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr D McIntosh, Mr J Sharma
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Gohil
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's direct race discrimination complaints, but upheld three complaints of race-related harassment concerning comments made in July 2020 and material read during the grievance process. A further race-related harassment complaint concerning the grievance appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld several victimisation and protected disclosure detriment complaints, while dismissing others and recording that one was dismissed upon withdrawal. It found that the respondent had not proved redundancy as the true reason for dismissal and concluded that protected disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal.
The automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996 succeeded. The separate complaint under section 100(1)(c) ERA 1996 was dismissed, and remedy was left to be determined at a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment complaints at paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the List of Issues succeeded; paragraph 2.4 was dismissed. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints at paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6 and 4.10 succeeded; paragraphs 4.4, 4.5, 4.7 and 4.9 were dismissed, and paragraph 4.8 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaints at paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6 and 4.10 succeeded; paragraphs 4.4, 4.5, 4.7 and 4.9 were dismissed, and paragraph 4.8 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of dismissal for making a protected disclosure contrary to section 103A ERA 1996 was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint under section 100(1)(c) ERA 1996 was not made out on the facts and was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Kuzel
- Mott
- Korshunova
- range of reasonable response
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.