Case 1400632/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C P Isidore v First Hampshire and Dorset Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400632/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray AND
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr P Bompas, Mr R Spry-Shute
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C P Isidore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal at Southampton, before Employment Judge Gray with members Mr P Bompas and Mr R Spry-Shute, unanimously dismissed Mr C P Isidore's complaints of discrimination arising from disability, harassment, and victimisation against First Hampshire & Dorset Limited. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by a solicitor.
The written record states that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were provided. The public record therefore records the outcomes only, without setting out further findings or any award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written record states that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability failed and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The written record states that the complaint of harassment failed and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The written record states that the complaint of victimisation failed and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.