Case 3202483/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Howell v London Borough of Redbridge — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202483/2018
- Decision date
- 9 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Howell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant’s claims for direct sex discrimination, sex harassment, disability discrimination, and unfair dismissal were dismissed upon withdrawal. The disability discrimination claims were described as including both perceived and associative discrimination.
The tribunal also ruled on part of the breach of contract case. It struck out the breach of contract claims insofar as they related to events after 31 August 2018, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, on the basis that those claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Sex harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to disability discrimination claims including perceived and associative discrimination, dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Only the breach of contract claims relating to events after 31 August 2018 were struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success; the judgment does not state any determination of any earlier breach of contract allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.