Case 2201565/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Smith v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201565/2018
- Decision date
- 3 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms S Boyce, Mrs J Cameron
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London Central on 2-3 October 2019 before Employment Judge Snelson with members Ms S Boyce and Mrs J Cameron. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by an Employee Relations Manager.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application, made on 3 October 2019, to adjourn the proceedings to a fresh date. It then adjudged unanimously that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 94 and 98 was not well-founded.
The tribunal also adjudged that the claimant's complaints of direct racial discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, ss 13, 27, 39(2)(c) and 39(4)(c) were not well-founded. Accordingly, the proceedings were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 94 and 98 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of direct racial discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the complaint of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 94 and 98
- Equality Act 2010 ss 13, 27, 39(2)(c) and 39(4)(c)
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.