Case 2303351/2022 · Employment Tribunal
C Alexander v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303351/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Reed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Alexander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter at London South by video on 20 December 2024 before Employment Judge MJ Reed. The claimant was represented by Mr James and the respondent by Ms Sarah Harty, barrister.
The judgment records that the respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused. Written reasons were not included in the record, with the notice stating that oral reasons had been given at the hearing and written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment only records that the respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused; the age discrimination claim was not substantively determined. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment only records that the respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused; the disability discrimination claim was not substantively determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment only records that the respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused; the race discrimination claim was not substantively determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment only records that the respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused; the unfair dismissal claim was not substantively determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment only records that the respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused; the unlawful deduction from wages claim was not substantively determined. | Other | — | — |
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.