Case 2500770/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Marie-Antoinette St Joseph v Citizens Advice Gateshead — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500770/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- D Winter, G Gallagher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Marie-Antoinette St Joseph
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Marie-Antoinette St Joseph brought complaints against Citizens Advice Gateshead of harassment related to race, direct race discrimination, and victimisation. The tribunal held that all three complaints were unfounded and dismissed them as wholly without merit.
The written record supplied here contains only the dispositive paragraph and the procedural note. It records that Employment Judge Sweeney gave reasons orally at the hearing, so no written reasons are included in this extract. No remedy was awarded.
On the face of the judgment, the tribunal resolved the whole case by rejecting each of the race discrimination complaints in full. No further factual findings, legal analysis, or monetary award are recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal said the complaint of harassment related to race was unfounded and dismissed it as wholly without merit. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal said the complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of race was unfounded and dismissed it as wholly without merit. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal said the complaint of victimisation was unfounded and dismissed it as wholly without merit. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.