Case 2206193/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Ohemeng-Appiah v Profile Security Services Ltd Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206193/2021
- Decision date
- 29 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson
- Panel members
- Ms T Breslin, Ms J Marshall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Ohemeng-Appiah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 28 and 29 June 2022, Employment Judge Davidson, Ms T Breslin and Ms J Marshall heard Mr E Ohemeng-Appiah's race discrimination complaint against Profile Security Services Ltd. The tribunal unanimously found that the complaint failed and dismissed it.
The tribunal said the claimant acted unreasonably or, alternatively, that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. On that basis, and under rule 76(1)(a) and rule 76(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, it ordered the claimant to pay £4,000 as a contribution to the respondent's costs. The written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination complaint was dismissed. The tribunal also found that the claimant acted unreasonably or, alternatively, that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, and made a costs order against the claimant under rule 76(1)(a) and rule 76(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 76(1)(a) and rule 76(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.