Case 2302674/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Smallman v HHGL Limited t/a Homebase — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302674/2019
- Decision date
- 4 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- In Chambers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Smallman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 4 January 2021, sitting in chambers, Employment Judge Matthews recorded that Mr Smallman's claims of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief were dismissed on withdrawal by consent. The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on liability, because the claims were disposed of procedurally rather than determined after a merits hearing.
The hearing was conducted remotely using the Common Video Platform, with the parties' consent. The tribunal noted that a face to face hearing was not held because of Covid-19 precautions and was satisfied that the overriding objective of dealing with the case fairly and justly could be met remotely. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | By consent, the claimant's religion or belief discrimination claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment records no substantive liability findings. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
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
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.