Case 2207536/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Beltsos v Gilead Sciences International Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207536/2022
- Decision date
- 28 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash
- Venue
- London Central in person
- Panel members
- Mr D Clay, Mr P Lewis
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Beltsos
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central, Employment Judge Nash sitting with Mr D Clay and Mr P Lewis heard the case between 18 and 28 September 2023. The tribunal held that the claim against both respondents for harassment contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010 succeeded, while the claim against the first respondent for victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010 failed.
On remedy, the parties had reserved their positions as to the liability judgment, but the first respondent then agreed by consent to pay the claimant £29,600 for injury to feelings arising during employment and £5,400 for loss of earnings. The total payable by the first respondent was therefore £35,000. The judgment states that there were no additional sums payable and that no sums were payable by the second respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Succeeded against both respondents under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The judgment records a consent remedy in aggregate but does not apportion the award between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Claim against the first respondent under section 27 Equality Act 2010 failed. No sums were payable by the second respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,400
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.