Case 2601645/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr N Whyte v Caring Hands Leicester Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2601645/2019
Decision date: 7 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Clark

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr N Whyte

Respondent

Caring Hands Leicester Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Clark gave a Rule 21 judgment on 7 October 2019. The written decision is a short template judgment and records that the claim succeeds, with the remedy to which the claimant is entitled to be determined at a later remedy hearing. The document does not set out the substantive allegations or any monetary award.

The remedy hearing was listed for 29 October 2019 at Leicester Hearing Centre, 5a New Walk, Leicester LE1 6TE, to last three hours, and the claimant was directed to provide a schedule of loss and the basis of calculation by 5 November 2019. The telephone preliminary hearing listed for 29 October 2019 and the final hearing listed for 9 to 11 November 2020 were postponed.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Classification follows the gov.uk listing context; the written judgment itself only records that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	Disability	—
Whistleblowing	Classification follows the gov.uk listing context; the written judgment itself only records that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Sex discrimination	Classification follows the gov.uk listing context; the written judgment itself only records that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	Sex	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Classification follows the gov.uk listing context; the written judgment itself only records that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Working time regulations	Classification follows the gov.uk listing context; the written judgment itself only records that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.