Case 2413801/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Raymond Levy v McHale Legal Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2413801/2018
- Decision date
- 21 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Langridge
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr Q Colborn, Ms B Hillon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Raymond Levy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 22 May 2019, Employment Judge Langridge, sitting with Mr Q Colborn and Ms B Hillon, found that McHale Legal Limited directly discriminated against Mr Raymond Levy contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 when it did not offer him a commercial property solicitor position on 12 March 2018. The tribunal's finding was that the claimant's age was the reason for that decision.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's indirect discrimination claim arising from the same facts. No compensation was determined in this judgment. Instead, the tribunal listed a separate remedy hearing for 17 and 18 July 2019 and set directions for exchange of further evidence and a supplementary bundle on remedy issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held that the respondent directly discriminated against the claimant contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 by not offering him a position as a commercial property solicitor on 12 March 2018, because his age was the reason for the decision. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Other | The claimant's indirect discrimination claim arising from the same facts was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Equality Act 2010
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.
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.