Case 2300411/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Kapil Sangar v Waterfield House Partners — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300411/2018
- Decision date
- 1 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Representation
- Venue
- London South Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Kapil Sangar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 1 March 2019 at London South Croydon, Employment Judge Sage heard the case. The claimant, Mr. Kapil Sangar, did not attend, and the respondent was represented by Mr. Bryan of Counsel. The written judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed.
The tribunal also ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £500 in costs, stating that this sum was incurred due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct. The written record says that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the record.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give separate written reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.