Case 2204605/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Fray, equality officer For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2204605/2023
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Hodgson
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr R Baber, Mr S Pearlman
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr C Fray, equality officer For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of direct race and age discrimination, alleging that his dismissal was discriminatory. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation for the dismissal, finding on the balance of probabilities that the decision-maker focused on the claimant's conduct, culpability, and whether trust and confidence had been undermined.
The tribunal found that the respondent had produced clear and cogent evidence for its explanation and that this answered both the race and age discrimination claims. It dismissed all direct discrimination claims.
The claimant also claimed wages, or alternatively breach of contract, relating to back pay under an agreement reached after pay negotiations. The tribunal found that dismissed employees were expressly excluded from that payment and that the claimant had not obtained a contractual right to it, so the wages and breach of contract claims failed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination claim based on the claimant's dismissal. The claimant described himself as Black British Caribbean. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct discrimination claim based on the claimant's dismissal. The claimant compared himself to younger workers and was 55 at the material time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had no contractual right to the payment claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract allegation was an alternative to the wages claim and failed because the tribunal found no contractual right to the payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- balance of probabilities
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.