Case 3202363/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Lauder v Queen Mary University of London — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202363/2019
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Members
- Panel members
- L Purewal, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Lauder
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe race discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant.
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct. It held that the dismissal was unfair because it fell outside the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4).
The tribunal also found that the Claimant unreasonably failed to mitigate his losses, limiting the period of loss to six months after dismissal. It found that the Claimant's conduct contributed to his dismissal, so the basic and compensatory awards would each be reduced by 60%. Terms of settlement had been agreed, so no further hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the race discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, but that the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4). Awards were to be reduced for failure to mitigate and contributory conduct, but no remedy figure is given because terms of settlement had been agreed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- range of reasonable responses
- section 98(4)
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.