Case 2216967/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Diamond (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216967/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Diamond (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central Employment Tribunal, before Employment Judge Webster, the tribunal heard the case on 27 January 2025 and 7 February 2025, with 5 and 6 February 2025 in chambers. The judgment records that the claimant was represented by Mr Diamond and the respondent by Mr Martin.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims for whistleblowing detriments and constructive unfair dismissal were not upheld. It also recorded that the claimant's claims for direct discrimination on grounds of sex and disability were not upheld, together with the claims for harassment related to sex and disability and the claim for discrimination arising out of disability.
The extracted judgment text contains only these dispositive findings and does not set out separate reasoning, factual findings, or any monetary award. No remedy is recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim described by the tribunal as 'whistleblowing detriments'. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Claim described by the tribunal as 'constructive unfair dismissal'. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim described by the tribunal as 'discrimination arising out of disability'. | 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.