Case 3204834/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Solanki Respondents London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 3204834/2022
- Decision date
- 18 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Park Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs B Solanki Respondents London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre over several dates in November and December 2025, with a further hearing date on 18 March 2026. The claimant appeared in person, accompanied by her husband, and the respondent was represented by counsel on 18 March 2026 only.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims of direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments did not succeed and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims of direct race discrimination did not succeed and were dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims of direct age discrimination did not succeed and were dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments did not succeed and were dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.