Case 1803248/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Laheo v Ilke Homes Ltd (in administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1803248/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilkinson Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Laheo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Laheo's claims were heard remotely by CVP at Leeds Employment Tribunal on 4 March 2024 before Employment Judge Wilkinson. The respondent, Ilke Homes Ltd (in administration), did not attend. The judgment records that the claimant's direct discrimination claim was not well founded and did not succeed.
The tribunal reached the same conclusion on the harassment and victimisation claims, recording that each was not well founded and did not succeed. The extracted text does not set out any additional findings of fact or legal reasoning beyond those conclusions.
No monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment. The extracted decision contains only the dispositive findings and the date of judgment, so no award or breakdown is stated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's direct discrimination claim was not well founded and did not succeed. The extracted text does not set out the protected characteristic, but the GOV.UK listing for this decision categorised the case as race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant's harassment claim was not well founded and did not succeed. The extracted text gives no further reasoning. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant's victimisation claim was not well founded and did not succeed. The extracted text gives no further reasoning. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.