Case 2202583/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Leonhardt, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2202583/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- J Marshall, L Tyler
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Leonhardt, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed parts of the claimant's direct race discrimination complaint because they were not presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The Tribunal also dismissed parts of the claimant's victimisation complaint on the same time-limit basis. The remaining parts of the direct race discrimination and victimisation complaints were found not well-founded and dismissed.
The claimant's application for a costs order failed and was dismissed. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and does not set out any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment dismissed part of the direct race discrimination complaint as out of time and dismissed the remaining parts as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment dismissed part of the victimisation complaint as out of time and dismissed the remaining parts as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's application for a costs order failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.