Case 2411873/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Shirley Russell v Cobalt Fashion (UK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2411873/2018
- Decision date
- 10 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey DATE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shirley Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hoey recorded that the claimant withdrew a number of claims, and those claims were dismissed on that basis. The dismissed claims were direct race discrimination claims numbered 1 to 5 within the schedule, unlawful victimisation claims numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11, and all claims of unlawful racial harassment.
The judgment also stated that the remaining claims were unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination claims numbered 6 and 7, and unlawful victimisation claims numbered 8 and 12. Those matters were to proceed to a hearing to be fixed. No merits findings or remedy were recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claims numbered 1 to 5 were dismissed on withdrawal; direct race discrimination claims numbered 6 and 7 were to proceed to the hearing to be fixed. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Unlawful victimisation claims numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 were dismissed on withdrawal; victimisation claims numbered 8 and 12 were to proceed to the hearing to be fixed. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | All claims of unlawful racial harassment were dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was listed among the remaining claims to proceed to the hearing to be fixed; this judgment did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
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.