Case 1306227/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Evboumwan v Regent Office Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306227/2020
- Decision date
- 12 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen
- Panel members
- Mr K Hutchinson, Mrs M Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Evboumwan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Birmingham by CVP over 4 to 12 April 2022 before Employment Judge Meichen, sitting with Mr K Hutchinson and Mrs M Howard. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a consultant.
The judgment records a single dispositive outcome: the claimant's claims failed and were dismissed. No further reasoning, liability analysis, or remedy award is set out in the extracted text supplied for this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The extracted judgment states that the claimant's claims fail and are dismissed, but it does not break out the outcome by individual claim in the text supplied. This claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment states that the claimant's claims fail and are dismissed, but it does not break out the outcome by individual claim in the text supplied. This claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment states that the claimant's claims fail and are dismissed, but it does not break out the outcome by individual claim in the text supplied. This claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment states that the claimant's claims fail and are dismissed, but it does not break out the outcome by individual claim in the text supplied. This claim type is taken from the case listing context. | 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.