Case 1305316/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Jennifer Ormond, consultant For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305316/2020
- Decision date
- 24 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs L Evans, Mr P Tsouvallaris
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Jennifer Ormond, consultant For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at Birmingham by CVP on 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 April 2023 before Employment Judge Dean with Mrs L Evans and Mr P Tsouvallaris as lay members. The claimant was represented by Jennifer Ormond, consultant, and the respondent by Mr Ed Beever of counsel.
The only complaint identified in the written judgment was that the claimant had been subjected to unlawful discrimination by victimisation in breach of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal recorded that this complaint did not succeed and was dismissed.
No remedy was awarded, and the written record does not set out any separate compensation or other monetary award. The judgment is limited to the dismissal of the victimisation complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s complaint that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination by victimisation in breach of section 27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 27 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.