Case 2301362/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Sutherland v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301362/2022
- Decision date
- 20 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Sutherland
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard two joined claims concerning direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation, and protected disclosure detriment. It refused to add the Claimant's third claim or expand the protected disclosure complaints into matters outside the listed issues, and the case proceeded on the agreed list of issues.
The only complaint that succeeded was part of Complaint 21. The Tribunal found that Mr Redford's designation of the Claimant's 29 September 2020 email to Mr Vig as not concerning colour was unwanted conduct related to race and that it was reasonable for that conduct to have the proscribed effect on the Claimant. The Tribunal found that the remainder of Complaint 21 did not succeed.
All other complaints failed and were dismissed. The religion or belief discrimination complaint had been withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 21 February 2024. The judgment did not set out a monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct and indirect race discrimination complaints failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Part of Complaint 21 succeeded: the designation of the Claimant's 29 September 2020 email to Mr Vig as not concerning colour by Mr Redford was an act of harassment related to race. The remaining harassment complaints failed and were dismissed. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaints failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The Claimant withdrew his complaint of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, and it was dismissed by EJ McCluskey on 21 February 2024. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43C Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Madarassy
- Cross
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- London Borough of Harrow v Knight
- Selkent
- Vaughan
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.