Case 2503551/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Stirling v London & South Eastern Railway Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2503551/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Panel members
- Mr D Newllyn, Mrs H Bharadia
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Stirling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the liability hearing, the tribunal recorded findings of direct race discrimination and race harassment and then dealt with remedy. It awarded injury to feelings of £19,000, inclusive of aggravated damages of £1,500, together with pecuniary loss of £6,952.78 and an ACAS uplift of £1,297.64.
The tribunal also awarded interest of £3,771.31. The total sum payable by way of compensation in respect of the claims was £31,021.73. It further recorded that, if any tax is payable on the award, the sum must be grossed up so that the claimant receives the figure stated in paragraph 2 of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Following the liability hearing, the tribunal found direct race discrimination. This remedy judgment makes compensation awards in respect of the claim, but the award is not apportioned between the separate claims. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | Following the liability hearing, the tribunal found race harassment. This remedy judgment makes compensation awards in respect of the claim, but the award is not apportioned between the separate claims. | Upheld | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,022
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,250
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.