Case 1400933/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Williams (CAB volunteer) (1, 2 and 4 July) In person (3 July) For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400933/2018
- Decision date
- 4 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
- Panel members
- Mr P Bompas, Ms J Ratnayake
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Williams (CAB volunteer) (1, 2 and 4 July) In person (3 July) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Southampton on 1 to 4 July 2019 before Employment Judge Gray, sitting with Mr P Bompas and Ms J Ratnayake. The claimant was Mr N Cheng and the respondent was R Twining and Company Limited. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the extracted text contains only the outcome and not the tribunal's full reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the allegation of direct race discrimination that the respondent failed to properly investigate on appeal the claimant’s complaints of race discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim of direct discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. | 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.