Case 1403679/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Brown v Quilter plc and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403679/2019
- Decision date
- 28 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Bristol on 18, 19, 20, 21 and 25 January 2021, with one day in chambers on 22 January 2021, before Employment Judge Midgley. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents were represented by counsel.
The judgment records that the claims against the First Respondent were not well founded and were dismissed because the First Respondent was not the claimant’s employer. It also records that the claims of harassment and direct discrimination against the Second Respondent were not well founded and were dismissed.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no remedy is set out in the written record. The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The written judgment records the claim as one of direct discrimination. It does not restate the protected characteristic, but the case was listed by gov.uk as Age Discrimination, so this claim is classified here as age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment records a harassment claim against the Second Respondent. The extracted reasons do not restate the protected characteristic, but the case was listed by gov.uk as Age Discrimination, so age is used here. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.