Case 2400981/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Darshan Patel (counsel) For the v Ms Jeanette Williams (solicitor) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400981/2020
- Decision date
- 9 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Darshan Patel (counsel) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone preliminary hearing on 8 September 2020 before Employment Judge Perry, the tribunal dealt with case management and withdrawal issues only. The claimant's complaints of whistleblowing detriment under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed upon withdrawal against the first and third respondents only, and those complaints were to continue against the second respondent.
Subject to the case management order promulgated the same day, the claimant's direct discrimination and harassment complaints were also to proceed to trial against all three respondents. The judgment did not determine liability on the merits and did not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of whistleblowing detriment under s.47B ERA 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal against the first and third respondents only; it was to proceed against the second respondent. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal against the first and third respondents only; it was to proceed against the second respondent. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment said the claimant's direct discrimination complaint would proceed to trial against all three respondents. The extracted text did not specify the protected characteristic, but the case listing category was sex discrimination. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment said the claimant's harassment complaint would proceed to trial against all three respondents. The extracted text did not specify the protected characteristic, but the case listing category was sex discrimination. | Other | Sex | — |
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.