Case 2413678/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Worsdale v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2025
- Case reference
- 2413678/2023
- Decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs C Linney, Mr I Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Worsdale
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 17-20 June 2025, Employment Judge Leach, sitting with Mrs C Linney and Mr I Taylor, unanimously dismissed all of Mr M Worsdale's complaints against The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The written judgment records claims of direct discrimination under section 13, harassment under section 26, and victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
The extracted record contains only the dispositive judgment and does not include written reasons. It states that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days. The judgment was approved on 20 June 2025 and sent to the parties on 28 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records a complaint of direct discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, but it does not identify the protected characteristic in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment records a complaint of harassment contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, but it does not identify the protected characteristic in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The written judgment records a complaint of victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.