Case 2307206/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2307206/2020
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
- Panel members
- Ms N Christofi, Mr W Dixon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South before Employment Judge K Andrews with Ms N Christofi and Mr W Dixon as members. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel, Mr J Scott-Joynt. The written judgment is brief and records only the tribunal's disposal of the case.
The judgment states that the claims fail and are dismissed. It does not include a written reasons section in the extracted text, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were to be provided unless requested within 14 days.
No remedy was awarded in the written record, and no separate compensation or other monetary figures are recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written judgment records that the claims fail and are dismissed. The judgment text itself does not set out separate reasons for each claim in the written record because reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The written judgment records that the claims fail and are dismissed. The judgment text itself does not set out separate reasons for each claim in the written record because reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.