Case 1400862/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Donovan v Somerset County Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400862/2021
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Christensen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Donovan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary stage, Employment Judge Christensen considered the claimant Mr K Donovan's Equality Act claims against Somerset County Council. The tribunal held that the direct discrimination claims under s13, relying on sex and race, had no reasonable prospects of success and were dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the harassment claim under s26 based on sex had no reasonable prospects of success and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded because the judgment did not determine any claim in the claimant's favour.
The judgment expressly recorded that it made no view on the prospects of success of the separate harassment claim under s26 based on age. That age-based claim was allowed to proceed to a hearing, and case management directions were issued for it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claim under s13 Equality Act based on sex as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claim under s13 Equality Act based on race as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the harassment claim under s26 Equality Act based on sex as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.