Case 2218547/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Representing himself For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2218547/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
- Panel members
- Ms G Carpenter, Mr J Carroll
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Representing himself For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an Associate Director Principal Designer from 31 October 2022 until 6 February 2024 and described himself as Black Caribbean. The tribunal refused an amendment to add an indirect sex discrimination complaint and recorded that the claimant withdrew his constructive unfair dismissal complaint and the complaints concerning paragraph 2.2.11.1 of the agreed list of issues.
The tribunal found that the complaints at paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.10 inclusive and 2.2.11.2 were out of time, that there was no conduct extending over a period, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It struck those complaints out, while also stating that they would have failed on the merits.
On the remaining race discrimination and race harassment complaints, the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence where there was conflict, found that the alleged acts were not proved as discrimination or harassment related to race, and found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed. The tribunal concluded that all complaints failed on their substantive merits.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant withdrew his complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and the tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination complaint at paragraph 2.2.11.1 of the agreed list of issues was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment related to race complaint at paragraph 2.2.11.1 of the agreed list of issues was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination complaints at paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.10 inclusive and 2.2.11.2 of the agreed list of issues were presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and struck them out. The tribunal also stated that they would have failed on the merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment related to race complaints at paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.10 inclusive and 2.2.11.2 of the agreed list of issues were presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and struck them out. The tribunal also stated that they would have failed on the merits. |
Legal tests applied
15 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- section 13(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 26(1) Equality Act 2010
- sections 39(2) and 40(1) Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes
- HM Land Registry v Grant
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
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.