Case 2210782/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms I Brown of counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 2210782/2023
Decision date: 24 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Klimov Tribunal
Venue: London Central
Panel members: R Baber, S Williams

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms I Brown of counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at London Central on 2 to 5, 8 and 9 July 2024 before Employment Judge Klimov with Tribunal Members R Baber and S Williams. The claimant was represented by Ms I Brown of counsel and the respondent by Mr C Edwards of counsel.

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race had been withdrawn by the claimant and were dismissed pursuant to Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Those complaints therefore did not proceed to a merits outcome.

The tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, stating that the claim was well founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The judgment did not set a compensation figure; instead, it ordered that compensation for unfair dismissal be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The claimant withdrew this complaint and it was dismissed pursuant to Rule 52.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The claimant withdrew this complaint and it was dismissed pursuant to Rule 52.	Dismissed	Race	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claim well founded and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed; compensation was left to be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.