Case 1400673/2022 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Ms Z Kerr — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400673/2022
- Decision date
- 20 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Dated
- Panel members
- Mr J Shah MBE, Ms J Kaye
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol on 3, 4 and 5 April 2023 before Employment Judge P Cadney with lay members Mr J Shah MBE and Ms J Kaye, dismissed all of the claimant's claims against Barchester Healthcare Ltd. The claims recorded in the judgment were direct race discrimination contrary to s13 Equality Act 2010, unpaid notice pay, and an allegation that the respondent failed to permit the claimant to be accompanied at a grievance meeting contrary to s10 Employment Relations Act 1999.
The judgment states that each of those claims was not well founded and was dismissed. No compensatory or other monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no separate remedy figures are identified for any claim. The extracted text contains only the dispositive parts of the judgment and does not set out detailed reasons beyond the recorded outcomes.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under s13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim that the respondent failed to permit the claimant to be accompanied at a grievance meeting, brought under s10 Employment Relations Act 1999. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s10 Employment Relations Act 1999
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.