Case 2210364/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D S Nascimento v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2210364/2023
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard
- Venue
- London Central via CVP
- Panel members
- Mrs J Griffiths, Dr V Weerasinghe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D S Nascimento
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at London Central via CVP on 5, 6, 7 and 8 March 2024. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel.
The Tribunal gave judgment that the Claimant's claims of discrimination on the grounds of sex and disability were not well-founded and dismissed them. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested by a party within 14 days of the written judgment being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of discrimination on the grounds of sex was not well-founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of discrimination on the grounds of disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.