Case 2302207/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Boyd v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302207/2019
- Decision date
- 16 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms E Gibson, Ms T E Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Boyd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The written judgment records the outcomes only, with reasons having been given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal awarded compensation of £6,500 for injury to feelings. It also awarded interest on that sum for the period from 3 June 2019 to 16 December 2020 at 8%, giving an interest award of £799.23.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct race discrimination succeeded. The injury to feelings award was not split between this complaint and the harassment complaint. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records that the complaint of harassment related to race succeeded. The injury to feelings award was not split between this complaint and the direct race discrimination complaint. | Upheld | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,299
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
- section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838
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.