Case 2302875/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O G May-Clingo v Goldex Investments (Essex) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302875/2018
- Decision date
- 16 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer Members
- Panel members
- Mr Wilby, Mr Huggins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O G May-Clingo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 9 August 2019, the Tribunal found that Mr O G May-Clingo was a disabled person at the material times. It held that his claims of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation were successful in part, and that his claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded.
The Tribunal ordered Goldex Investments Limited to pay £5,818.62. The award was made up of £263 for loss of earnings, £5,000 for injury to feelings and £555.62 interest. The written judgment records that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim successful in part. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim successful in part. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim successful in part. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim successful. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,819
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,263
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.