Case 2502774/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Mennim v Gateshead Community Organisation CIC — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502774/2023
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Members
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
- Panel members
- Mr P Curtis, Mr TD Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Mennim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Newcastle CFCTC on 24 September 2024 before Employment Judge Arullendran with members Mr P Curtis and Mr TD Wilson. The claimant, Mr C Mennim, was represented by Mrs Denise Mennim and the respondent, Gateshead Community Organisation CIC, was represented by Mrs Corrina Mulholland.
In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal dismissed all four complaints. It found that the complaint of harassment related to age contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded, and that the complaint of direct age discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded. It also dismissed the complaint of detriment for making a protected disclosure under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No further findings or remedy awards are recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to age under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment for making a protected disclosure under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was found 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.