Case 2301853/2017 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301853/2017
- Decision date
- 26 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
- Panel members
- Ms V Stansfield, Mr C Wilby
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 21 to 26 November 2019 before Employment Judge K Andrews sitting with lay members Ms V Stansfield and Mr C Wilby. The claimant, Mr L Govind, appeared in person and the respondent, the Home Office, was represented by counsel.
The judgment records that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. It also records that he was not discriminated against arising from his disability and that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not breached. No separate findings or remedy assessment are set out in the written judgment beyond those dismissal conclusions.
All claims were dismissed. The written record notes 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 decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not discriminated against arising from his disability and that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not breached. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.