Case 2300311/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Gallardo v United Brands Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300311/2023
- Decision date
- 31 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Dixon, Mardner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Gallardo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Gallardo brought claims against United Brands Limited under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that the direct discrimination claim under s.13 was not well founded and dismissed it.
The harassment claim under s.26 succeeded. The tribunal also found that it was just and equitable to extend time for that claim. By consent, the tribunal proceeded to remedy at the same hearing.
The tribunal awarded a total of £5,228.49 for the harassment claim. That sum comprised £5,000 for injury to feelings, assessed within Vento band 1, and £228.49 interest on the £5,000 from the date of the harassment to the hearing, calculated over 834 days at 2%. The sums were ordered to be paid within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written judgment records a direct discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. It does not restate the protected characteristic in the judgment text, but the case is listed as Race Discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment records a harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010. It does not restate the protected characteristic in the judgment text, but the case is listed as Race Discrimination. The tribunal extended time as just and equitable. | Upheld | Race | £5,228 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,228
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
- Vento band 1
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.