Case 2202923/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202923/2019
- Decision date
- 25 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms T Shaah, Ms E Flanagan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record for this case states that the hearing took place at London Central on 17, 18, 19 and 20 November 2020 before Employment Judge A James, Ms T Shaah and Ms E Flanagan. The claimant was in person and the respondent was represented by Ms C Urquhart, counsel.
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It recorded that the claim for unfair dismissal under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld, and the claim for wrongful dismissal under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994 was also not upheld. The sex discrimination claims, both direct under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and indirect under section 19 Equality Act 2010, were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 and the race discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The written judgment is a brief record of decision only and does not set out the tribunal's reasons beyond the formal outcome.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records both direct sex discrimination and indirect sex discrimination claims; both were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records both direct sex discrimination and indirect sex discrimination claims; both were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.