Case 2300055/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C. Kwaramba-Downs v Places for People Leisure Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300055/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr J Hutchings, Mr W. Dixon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C. Kwaramba-Downs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C. Kwaramba-Downs brought claims against Places for People Leisure Limited, heard at London South via CVP on 12, 13 and 14 October 2022 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith sitting with Mr J Hutchings and Mr W. Dixon. The written judgment records that the claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination and victimisation were not well founded and were dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded. The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and it does not set out the tribunal’s detailed reasoning in writing.
No monetary award is recorded in the written decision extract, so no basic award, compensatory award, interest or other remedy amount can be extracted from this judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written judgment refers only to 'direct discrimination'; the case listing identifies the matter as race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The written judgment refers only to 'victimisation'; the case listing identifies the matter as race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.