Case 2200649/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dwight Pile-Grey v Ministry of Defence — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200649/2022
- Decision date
- 6 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms K O'Shaughnessy, Mr D Kendall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dwight Pile-Grey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Singh and lay members Ms K O'Shaughnessy and Mr D Kendall, found that it had jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's complaints of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation under section 121 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment records that the Claimant was represented by Mr N Roberts of Counsel and the Respondent by Mr N Fetto KC.
The tribunal then held that the Claimant's claims of direct race discrimination, racial harassment and victimisation were successful. The extracted text does not set out the detailed factual findings or reasoning, but it records the liability outcome on each of those claims in the Claimant's favour.
No remedy figure, compensation breakdown, or final monetary award is stated in the extracted judgment text provided, so no award can be extracted from this source.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the Claimant's direct race discrimination complaint was successful. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the Claimant's racial harassment complaint was successful. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the Claimant's victimisation complaint was successful. | Upheld | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s121 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.