Case 1402386/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Philip Cooper v AND Mr Robert Heathman Trading as The Pickwick Inn — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402386/2020
- Decision date
- 28 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Philip Cooper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal sat in chambers on 24 July 2020 and issued a Rule 21 judgment because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented by the respondent, Mr Robert Heathman trading as The Pickwick Inn. On that basis, the tribunal recorded that Mr Philip Cooper had been discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. No separate findings are set out in the extracted text beyond those recorded in the Rule 21 judgment, and the judgment does not specify a monetary award.
The tribunal stated that the appropriate remedy would be determined at a further hearing, with notice to be sent to the parties in due course. The decision was dated 24 July 2020 and sent to the parties on 28 July 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Judgment under Rule 21: the claimant was found to have been discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. | Upheld | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. The judgment does not record a quantified award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.