Case 2301384/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Davis v Riverside Works Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301384/2021
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms A Boyce, Mr A Peart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Davis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London South hearing on 18, 19, 20 and 21 July 2023, before Employment Judge Heath sitting with Ms A Boyce and Mr A Peart, the tribunal heard Mr D Davis’s claims against Riverside Works Limited. The claims recorded in the judgment were race-related harassment, direct race discrimination, age-related harassment, direct age discrimination, victimisation, breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from wages.
The written judgment states that all of those claims were not well-founded and were dismissed. No claim-specific findings, liability analysis, or factual detail are set out in the written record beyond that outcome.
The judgment also notes that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The written record contains no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal recorded this as race-related harassment and found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded this as direct race discrimination and found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal recorded this as age-related harassment and found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal recorded this as direct age discrimination and found it not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the victimisation claim not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unauthorised deductions from wages claim not well-founded. | 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.
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.