Case 2206510/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2206510/2018
- Decision date
- 20 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Dr V Weerasinghe, Ms S Campbell
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central, Employment Judge Tayler with members Dr V Weerasinghe and Ms S Campbell heard the case from 16 to 20 September 2019. The judgment records that Mr Z Chopdat's breach of contract claim succeeded.
The judgment also records that the other claims were dismissed, which in the case context included the race discrimination and religion or belief discrimination claims. The supplied extract does not set out further findings of fact, legal analysis, or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the breach of contract claim succeeded. The supplied extract does not identify the contractual term relied on or any separate monetary award for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as part of the judgment's statement that the other claims were dismissed. The supplied extract does not give separate reasoning for this claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed as part of the judgment's statement that the other claims were dismissed. The supplied extract does not give separate reasoning for this claim. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.