Case 2201121/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Loombe, Employment law Partner — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201121/2019
- Decision date
- 10 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms K Church, Ms N Foster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge A James and lay members Ms K Church and Ms N Foster, gave a unanimous judgment on 10 October 2019. It dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The record does not set out any monetary award, and no remedy was recorded for that claim.
The tribunal also dealt with a claim described as victimisation for raising a race discrimination claim, referred to section 27 Equality Act 2010. That claim was not proceeded with and was dismissed. The written record gives the outcomes only and does not contain substantive written reasons beyond noting that oral reasons had been given at the hearing.
The decision therefore records two dismissed claims and no award. The extracted record does not identify any separate findings of fact or any split of compensation between claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment says the claim for victimisation for raising a race discrimination claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was not proceeded with and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 27 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.