Case 2307001/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Elcho solicitor For the v Mr G Anderson barrister — 2024
- Case reference
- 2307001/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Elcho solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 7 August 2024 before Employment Judge Truscott QC, the parties agreed that the claimant's amendments dated 17 January 2024 and 22 February 2024 should be allowed. The claimant's claims of indirect disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation were then dismissed on withdrawal.
The only contested issue was the claimant's application for an anonymity order under Rule 50. The respondent was neutral on that application but made factual submissions to assist the tribunal. The tribunal also had the Judicial College Guidance available to it.
The tribunal held that the facts of the case fell far short of what was required to displace the principle of open justice and refused the anonymity application. No monetary remedy was awarded because the discrimination claims were withdrawn and the judgment records no compensation or other award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant's indirect disability discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal, following amendment by agreement. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim was dismissed on withdrawal, following amendment by agreement. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was dismissed on withdrawal, following amendment by agreement. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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.