Case 2204876/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2204876/2018
- Decision date
- 18 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr G Bishop, Mr S Maheswaran
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Glennie and lay members Mr G Bishop and Mr S Maheswaran, unanimously dismissed all of the claimant's complaints. Those included unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, direct discrimination because of race, religion or belief, age and sex, and complaints of detriment and unfair dismissal under Part VIII of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The written record does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The public record therefore records only the outcomes of the claims, all of which were dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed by the unanimous tribunal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Trade union | Complaints of detriment and unfair dismissal contrary to Part VIII of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- Part VIII TULRCA 1992
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.