Case 2601031/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R. Champayne v University of Leicester Students’ Union — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601031/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Panel members
- Mr Akhtar, Mr Purkis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R. Champayne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, comprising Employment Judge Broughton with members Mr Akhtar and Mr Purkis, heard the claim on 10 June 2021. It gave an oral judgment and recorded that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days.
The only substantive finding recorded in the written judgment is that the claimant’s victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded. No additional liability findings, factual detail, or alternative claims are set out in the extracted text.
On remedy, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £950 in respect of injury to feelings and £98.90 interest, calculated as 475 days at 8%. The total award recorded from the judgment is £1,048.90.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The Tribunal found the victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 well founded. It awarded £950 for injury to feelings and £98.90 interest, described as 475 days at 8%. | Upheld | — | £1,049 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,049
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 27 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.