Case 2500539/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Middlesbrough Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500539/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Ms C Hunter, Ms P Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Aspden and lay members Ms C Hunter and Ms P Wright, heard the case on 8 to 12 January 2024 and by video on 6 February 2024. It unanimously held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s Equality Act 2010 complaint, but found that complaint not well founded and dismissed it.
It also found that the claimant’s complaints that the respondent subjected him to detriments contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well founded and dismissed them. The written record contains the dispositive conclusions only: it does not set out the underlying factual findings or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written record states only that the claimant’s complaint of discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded. The GOV.UK listing for this decision categorises the case as race discrimination, so the protected characteristic has been recorded as race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the claimant’s complaints that the respondent subjected him to detriments contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well founded. | 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.