Case 2300187/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jagjeet Kumar First v Vapes LDN Limited Second Respondent: Mr Elliot White — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300187/2021
- Decision date
- 17 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
- Panel members
- Ms J Forecast, Mr S Townsend
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jagjeet Kumar First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South Tribunal on 14 to 17 March 2023 before Employment Judge Clarke, Ms J Forecast and Mr S Townsend. The judgment records that the complaint of failure to pay the National Minimum Wage and the complaint of direct sexual orientation discrimination were dismissed on withdrawal. The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was also dismissed on withdrawal because the sum claimed had been paid in full by the First Respondent.
The Tribunal rejected the race-based complaints. It found that the complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment on grounds of race against both Respondents were not well-founded, meaning it did not find that the Claimant had been discriminated against because of his race.
The Tribunal also rejected the remaining harassment complaints. It found that the complaints of sexual harassment and harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation against both Respondents were not well-founded, meaning it did not find that the Claimant had been sexually harassed or subjected to harassment because of sexual orientation. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of failure to pay the National Minimum Wage against the First Respondent; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Direct sexual orientation discrimination against both Respondents; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unlawful deduction from wages against the First Respondent; dismissed on withdrawal after the sum claimed had been paid in full. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination against both Respondents; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on grounds of race against both Respondents; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Sexual harassment against both Respondents; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation against both Respondents; found not well-founded. |
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.