Case 2206708/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206708/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- C Brayson, Dr V Weerasinghe
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment of Employment Judge P Klimov with tribunal members C Brayson and Dr V Weerasinghe, heard at London Central via video on 14, 15 and 16 March 2022. The written record states only the dispositive outcomes and does not set out separate written reasons.
The claimant's victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal. The claimant's harassment claim related to race under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed, as did the claim of direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The respondent's application for a costs order under Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 also failed and was dismissed. No monetary remedy or award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The written judgment states that the claim for victimisation under section 27 EQA 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment states that the claim for harassment related to race under section 26 EQA 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment states that the claim for direct discrimination because of race under section 13 EQA 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.