Case 1800010/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Viega v VPG Systems Limited and 4 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800010/2023
- Decision date
- 25 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Panel members
- Mr J Howarth, Mr W Roberts
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Miss A Viega
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting in Leeds on 19, 20, 23, 24 and 25 October 2023 before Employment Judge Ayre with Mr J Howarth and Mr W Roberts, gave a unanimous decision on the claimant's claims against VPG Systems Limited and the individual respondents. It held that the claim for direct race discrimination failed, the claim for harassment related to race failed, and the claim for victimisation failed.
The Tribunal also held that the claim for harassment related to sex was out of time and that it did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim. No substantive liability finding was made on that claim because it was not entertained on the merits.
The claim described as breach of contract / wrongful dismissal was struck out because the claimant had not paid the deposit ordered in respect of that claim. The judgment records no monetary award and states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons only to follow if requested.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 | Direct race discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex was found to be out of time and the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Described as a claim for breach of contract / wrongful dismissal; struck out because the claimant had not paid the deposit ordered in respect of that claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.