Case 3200590/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Wright v Mildreds Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200590/2021
- Decision date
- 14 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms W Blake-Ranken, Mr M Rowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Wright brought claims against Mildreds Limited for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. The hearing took place at the East London Hearing Centre on 11, 12, 13 and 14 April 2023 before Employment Judge Jones, sitting with Ms W Blake-Ranken and Mr M Rowe. The tribunal stated that the claimant was fairly dismissed, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.
On race discrimination, the tribunal recorded that one complaint succeeded and that the other allegations of race discrimination were dismissed. The extracted text does not identify which particular allegation succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £3,000 for the successful race discrimination complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal said that one complaint of race discrimination succeeded and the other allegations of race discrimination were dismissed. The extracted text does not identify which specific allegation succeeded. | Upheld | Race | £3,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,000
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.