Case 2203712/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Latinwo, Solicitor v Mr Ludlow, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203712/2020
- Decision date
- 9 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Latinwo, Solicitor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 3 November 2020, Employment Judge Russell sitting alone recorded that the correct name of the respondent is Tower Transport Operations Limited. The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim and race discrimination claim were dismissed by withdrawal.
The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim on the basis that there was no protected act under s.27(2) Equality Act 2010 that could amount to or lead to a breach of s.27(1). The claimant's application to amend the ET1 was accepted except for the victimisation claim, and the order recorded that the remaining breach of contract and age discrimination claims, including direct and indirect age discrimination, would continue subject to a further open preliminary hearing and the listed full 3-day hearing on 14, 15 and 16 July 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed by withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed by withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed because the tribunal found there was no protected act under s.27(2) Equality Act 2010 that could amount to or lead to a breach of s.27(1). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.27(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.27(1) Equality Act 2010
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.