Case 2403158/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Sule v Shoosmiths LLP — 2017
- Case reference
- 2403158/2016
- Decision date
- 9 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt
- Panel members
- Ms D Doughty, Mr P Dodd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Sule
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Manchester on 1 and 2 March 2017 before Employment Judge Sherratt, with Ms D Doughty and Mr P Dodd as the lay members. In the written judgment, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's harassment claim succeeded and that all other claims were dismissed.
The tribunal ordered the respondent, Shoosmiths LLP, to pay the claimant £1,000 inclusive of interest by way of compensation for injury to feelings. The written record does not break that award down into separate components and does not record any separate basic award or compensatory award.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written decision does not set out the tribunal's fuller factual or legal reasoning. The record therefore confirms the outcome and the remedy, but not the detailed basis on which the harassment claim was upheld or the other claims failed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The written judgment records the succeeded claim only as harassment. The case was listed by gov.uk under Race Discrimination, but the written record itself does not further particularise the protected characteristic. | Upheld | Race | £1,000 |
| Other | The judgment states that all other claims were dismissed but does not itemise them in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.