Case 1402318/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C. Ibbetson (Counsel) v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402318/2021
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Mrs V. Blake, Mrs P. Skillin
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss C. Ibbetson (Counsel)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that on 2 February 2021 the Second Respondent, acting in circumstances for which the First Respondent was vicariously liable, said words in the Claimant’s presence at work to the effect of: “She seems to think I was born yesterday … she seems to think I was born on a banana boat”. The tribunal held that this was unwanted conduct related to race and that it had the effect of creating an offensive environment for the Claimant, contrary to s.26 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal recorded that the Second Respondent apologised very promptly on 2 February 2021 for her ignorance and the offence caused. That apology did not alter the finding that the conduct amounted to harassment related to race. No other liability findings are recorded in the extracted judgment.
The remedy awarded was £2,000 for injury to feelings plus £289.32 interest, making a total of £2,289.32. The First Respondent was ordered to pay the total within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal found that on 2 February 2021 the Second Respondent, for whom the First Respondent was vicariously liable, engaged in unwanted conduct related to race that created an offensive environment for the Claimant under s.26 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Race | £2,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,289
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.26 Equality Act 2010
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.