Case 2300085/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr L Porter, Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300085/2019
- Decision date
- 24 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
- Panel members
- Ms C Edwards, Ms L Brooks
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the claimant’s s.26 Equality Act 2010 harassment claim succeeded against both respondents. It dismissed the claimant’s s.13 direct discrimination claim and s.27 victimisation claim.
The tribunal awarded £4,000 for injury to feelings and £1,678.60 for loss of earnings and additional expenses, payable by both respondents jointly and severally. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days, so the published record does not set out further factual reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The s.26 Equality Act 2010 harassment claim succeeded against both respondents. The tribunal awarded £4,000 for injury to feelings and £1,678.60 for loss of earnings and additional expenses, jointly and severally. | Upheld | — | £5,679 |
| Race discrimination | The s.13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The s.27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,679
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,679
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.