Case 2201739/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Aboagye (Lay representative and partner) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2201739/2023
- Decision date
- 9 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr Pearlman, Mr Tansley
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Aboagye (Lay representative and partner) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London Central over 31 January to 6 February 2024 before Employment Judge Webster and lay members Mr Pearlman and Mr Tansley. The claimant was Mr Clive Phillips and the respondent was Combined Technical Solutions Ltd. The judgment record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal did not uphold the claimant’s harassment claim, which was framed as harassment related to race/nationality under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. It also did not uphold the claimant’s direct race discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal further did not uphold the claimant’s claim for constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment claim was described as related to race/nationality under s26 Equality Act 2010 and was not upheld. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under s13 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim under s95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s26 Equality Act 2010
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s95(1)(c) 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.