Case 3200640/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Record v Barclays Bank UK plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200640/2021
- Decision date
- 10 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Miss S Harwood, Dr J Ukemenam
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Record
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant withdrew his complaint of indirect sex discrimination. That complaint was dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The remaining complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. Those complaints were unfair dismissal, breach of contract and wrongful dismissal in respect of notice pay, direct sex discrimination, and harassment related to sex. The short judgment does not set out detailed factual findings or reasons beyond the stated outcomes.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of indirect sex discrimination was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a complaint of breach of contract and wrongful dismissal (notice pay). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of breach of contract and wrongful dismissal (notice pay). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.