Case 1309303/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1309303/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
- Panel members
- Mr R Virdee, Mr J Kelly
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Birmingham on 18 to 21 July 2022 before Employment Judge Gaskell, sitting with Mr R Virdee and Mr J Kelly. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written record states that the hearing continued as a hybrid hearing as listed.
The claimant applied first for the recusal of Employment Judge Gaskell alone and later for the recusal of the entire panel. Both applications were refused. The tribunal then recorded, pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, that the claimant's claims were dismissed in their entirety.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not separately identify each pleaded claim in the written record; it states that the claimant's claims were dismissed in their entirety. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not separately identify each pleaded claim in the written record; it states that the claimant's claims were dismissed in their entirety. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.