Case 1305569/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Morgan v Mitie Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305569/2023
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Members
- Panel members
- Mrs N Chavda, Mr D Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Birmingham Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Akhtar with members Mrs N Chavda and Mr D Spencer, gave a unanimous judgment after a hearing on 9 to 11 December 2024.
The complaints of harassment related to race and direct race discrimination were found not well-founded and were dismissed. The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was also found not well-founded and was dismissed.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not set out further findings of fact or legal reasoning, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to race was not well-founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.