Case 2303141/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Mr E Macdonald, Counsel For the 1st v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2303141/2017
Decision date: 18 January 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge K Andrews Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr E Macdonald, Counsel For the 1st

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a hearing in London South before Employment Judge K Andrews sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the claimant withdrew the unpaid wages and holiday pay claims, and those claims were dismissed on withdrawal. It also held that the direct race discrimination claims arising out of events on 9 and 10 May 2017, and the harassment claim arising out of events on 10 May 2017, all made against the second respondent, were submitted out of time and dismissed.

The tribunal further stated that all remaining claims were either in time or, where not, it was just and equitable to extend time to allow them to proceed. Applications by both respondents to strike out various remaining claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success were refused.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim for unpaid wages was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—
Holiday pay	The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—
Race discrimination	Direct race discrimination claims arising out of events on 9 and 10 May 2017, against the second respondent, were held to be out of time and dismissed.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The judgment groups the harassment claim with the race discrimination allegations against the second respondent; it was said to arise out of events on 10 May 2017 and was dismissed as out of time.	Dismissed	Race	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.