Case 2300288/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Davies-Fletcher, Lay Representative For the v Mr R Cater, Advocate — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300288/2019
- Decision date
- 17 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
- Panel members
- Dr S Chacko, Mr R Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Davies-Fletcher, Lay Representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 15-17 March 2021 before Employment Judge Morton, sitting with Dr S Chacko and Mr R Singh. In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal identified claims against the Second Respondent for racial harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010 and victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010.
Both claims against the Second Respondent failed and were dismissed. The written record does not set out detailed reasons because the tribunal states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
The tribunal also recorded that, at the relevant time, the claimant had no legal relationship with the First Respondent giving rise to any claims. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal recorded this as a claim of racial harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010 against the Second Respondent and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal recorded this as a claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 against the Second Respondent and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.26 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.