Case 2307806/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C. Santana v G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307806/2020
- Decision date
- 19 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr J. Turley, Mr S. Corkerston
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C. Santana
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South via CVP before Employment Judge T.R. Smith with members Mr J. Turley and Mr S. Corkerston, dismissed Mr C. Santana's complaint that he was constructively unfairly dismissed. The judgment states that the complaint was not well founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages, finding that it was not well founded. No monetary award or remedy was recorded.
The complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment and part of the complaint of victimisation were found not to have been presented in accordance with section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints.
The claimant's in-time complaints of victimisation were also dismissed as not well founded. The judgment records no upheld claim and no remedy figure.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment described this as a complaint that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed and stated it was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability were not presented in accordance with section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment complaint was grouped with the out-of-time Equality Act complaints; the judgment does not separately specify the protected characteristic for harassment, but the grouped complaints concern disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Part of the victimisation complaint was out of time with no just and equitable extension; the in-time victimisation complaints were not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.