Case 2302010/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bockarie v Goulden House Co-operative — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302010/2020
- Decision date
- 9 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington Appearances
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bockarie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 9 February 2022 before Employment Judge Harrington, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr K Chehal, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's pleaded claims in case number 2302010/2020. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's breach of contract claims. It also recorded that the claimant's claims of direct race discrimination, victimisation, and harassment related to race would proceed to the full merits hearing. This judgment did not determine liability on those race-related claims and made no award of compensation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the claimant's breach of contract claims at this preliminary stage. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim of direct race discrimination was allowed to proceed to the full merits hearing; no substantive finding on liability was made in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim related to race was allowed to proceed to the full merits hearing; no substantive finding on liability was made in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim related to race was allowed to proceed to the full merits hearing; no substantive finding on liability was made in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.