Case 3200847/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Boyo v Peabody — 2018
- Case reference
- 3200847/2018
- Decision date
- 8 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Hyde Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Boyo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that, with no objection, the Claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, and all race discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment did not determine those claims on their merits; it disposed of them procedurally following withdrawal.
The reasons note that the withdrawal order covered the discrimination complaints already identified in the judgment. No findings were made on liability, and no monetary remedy was awarded in respect of those withdrawn claims.
The Tribunal also noted that the remaining claims were still live for a later hearing: disability harassment, discrimination arising from disability, victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. Those claims were listed for hearing on 5 to 8 and 12 February 2019 at East London Hearing Centre.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of direct disability discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of indirect disability discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | All race discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
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.