Case 2603321/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Secada v DHU Health Care CIC — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603321/2019
- Decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Members
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- M G Austin, Mr C Bhogaita
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Secada
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by Cloud Video Platform at Nottingham on 22, 23, 24 and 25 March 2021 before Employment Judge Hutchinson and lay members M G Austin and Mr C Bhogaita. The tribunal gave a unanimous judgment.
The written judgment records that the claims of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation failed and were dismissed. It also records that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages failed and was dismissed.
The public record supplied here does not include the tribunal's oral reasons. It notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records a claim of direct discrimination but does not identify the protected characteristic in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment dismisses the harassment claim; the extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic underlying it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment dismisses the victimisation claim; the extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic underlying it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.