Case 2306061/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Carew v Elysium Healthcare Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306061/2020
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Panel members
- Ms Janet Keene, Ms Janet Jerram
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Carew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that the Claimant's claims of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation, all on the grounds of race, were not well-founded and dismissed those claims.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages in the gross sum of £681.60. It ordered the Respondent to pay that sum to the Claimant, noting that the Claimant would need to self-assess for tax and national insurance contributions.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records claims of direct discrimination on grounds of race as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records claims of harassment on grounds of race as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records claims of victimisation on grounds of race as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the gross sum of £681.60. | Upheld | — | £682 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £682
- 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.