Case 2207560/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Nath, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2207560/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Hodgson
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms Z Darmas, Mr S Godecharle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Nath, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought proceedings alleging disability discrimination and direct race and sex discrimination. The race and disability discrimination claims had previously been dismissed on withdrawal, leaving allegations of direct sex discrimination for determination.
The tribunal refused late amendment applications and considered the pleaded direct sex discrimination allegations. It found that the factual basis for some allegations was not established, that other treatment was not a detriment or was reasonable in context, and that the matters relied on had nothing to do with the claimant's sex.
The tribunal dismissed all remaining direct discrimination claims. No remedy award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The remaining claims were allegations of direct sex discrimination. The judgment states that all claims of direct discrimination fail and are dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claims of race discrimination were previously dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claims of disability discrimination were previously dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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.