Case 3200120/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Tricia Blake v Peter Laing and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200120/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Mack Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms S Harwood, Mrs B Saund
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms Tricia Blake
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at East London Hearing Centre over seven days in November 2024, considered claims by Ms Tricia Blake against her former employer Newham Community Renewal Project Ltd and two individual respondents, Peter Laing and Paul Evans. The claims comprised harassment related to race and to religion or belief, direct and indirect race discrimination, discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. The Tribunal held that incidents occurring before 3 September 2022 were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so those parts of the claims were dismissed.
On the remaining matters, the Tribunal found that the discrimination and harassment claims were not well-founded. In relation to victimisation, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant had suffered detriment in two respects (the sharing of her grievance in full and the late provision of documents before the appeal hearing), but concluded that neither was because she had done a protected act, and so the victimisation claims were dismissed. The Tribunal found that the grievance and appeal processes had been conducted thoroughly and impartially.
On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal concluded that the reason for dismissal was redundancy: the claimant's Income Co-ordinator role had been created in 2019 to address a backlog of arrears, was extended through fixed-term contracts, and ceased to exist after her departure. The Tribunal also concluded that the third respondent conducted a fair redundancy process, including consultation and offers of alternative employment, and that it acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason to dismiss. All claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to race brought against all three respondents; dismissed (in part as out of time, in part as not well-founded). | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to religion or belief brought against all three respondents; dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination and indirect race discrimination claims; dismissed (some incidents out of time, others not well-founded). | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Discrimination on the ground of religion or belief; dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Multiple victimisation claims (including sharing of the grievance and delayed provision of documents) all dismissed; Tribunal found detriment in some instances but not because of any protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal concluded dismissal was for redundancy and the third respondent acted reasonably; unfair dismissal claim dismissed. | 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.