Case 2201560/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Lawrence, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201560/2022
- Decision date
- 22 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms S Brazier, Mr D Shaw
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr O Lawrence, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Adkin, sitting with lay members Ms S Brazier and Mr D Shaw. The claimant, Mr C Hodgett-Richardson, brought claims of unfair dismissal and direct race and direct age discrimination against Westminister City Council.
In the written judgment, the tribunal recorded that the allegations in list of issues paragraphs 5(b), (i), (j), (k) and (m) of the direct race and direct age discrimination claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal then found that the remaining allegations of direct race discrimination and direct age discrimination were not well founded and dismissed them.
The unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed. The judgment states that the claim was not well founded under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the allegations in list of issues paragraphs 5(b), (i), (j), (k) and (m) were dismissed upon withdrawal, and that the remaining allegations of direct race discrimination were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment records that the allegations in list of issues paragraphs 5(b), (i), (j), (k) and (m) were dismissed upon withdrawal, and that the remaining allegations of direct age discrimination were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim not well founded and dismissed it under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.