Case 2301071/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. R Daudet Respondent - Computacenter (UK) Limited v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301071/2023
- Decision date
- 22 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Venue
- London South Hearing Centre in person
- Panel members
- Ms. H. Bharadia
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr. R Daudet Respondent - Computacenter (UK) Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London South Hearing Centre on 21-25 October 2024 before Employment Judge McLaren and Ms. H. Bharadia. Its unanimous decision was that the claimant was fairly dismissed, and the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay. It further dismissed the claimant's claims of direct race discrimination and direct discrimination on the protected characteristic of religion or belief.
The final complaint, for harassment related to race and/or religion or belief, was also found not well founded and dismissed. The record does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning beyond the outcome of each complaint, and it records no monetary award or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race and/or religion or belief. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
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.