Case 2302222/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ricky Garrett v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302222/2021
- Decision date
- 15 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins Members
- Panel members
- Ms M Foster-Norman, Mr J Hutchins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ricky Garrett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal extended time only for the acts listed in paragraphs 2.4.2 to 2.4.11 of the annexed Case Management Order. All other acts were held to be out of time, with no extension granted.
By a majority, the Tribunal found that the direct race discrimination claim concerning the act at paragraph 2.4.9 was well founded and succeeded. It also found that the direct discrimination claims on the ground of belief concerning the acts at paragraphs 2.4, 2.4.9 and 2.4.11 were well founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal unanimously held that all other direct discrimination claims, whether on grounds of race or belief, were not well founded and failed. The respondent was ordered to pay GBP 3,750 for injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim succeeded in respect of the act listed at paragraph 2.4.9. Other direct race discrimination claims were not well founded and failed. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The direct discrimination claims on the ground of belief succeeded in respect of the acts listed at paragraphs 2.4, 2.4.9 and 2.4.11. Other direct belief discrimination claims were not well founded and failed. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,750
- across all upheld claims
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.