Case 3205212/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss N James (2) Miss J Saine v London & Quadrant Housing Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3205212/2022
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Panel members
- Mr S Woodhouse, Ms J Houzer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss N James (2) Miss J Saine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFor the first claimant, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 to hear the direct race discrimination claim relating to detriment A, and it found that claim well founded. The first claimant's direct race discrimination claims relating to detriments B and C were dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, and the direct race discrimination claim relating to detriment D was dismissed as not well founded.
The first claimant's victimisation claims relating to detriments B, C and D were also held to be within jurisdiction under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, but the tribunal found those claims not well founded and dismissed them. For the second claimant, the tribunal reached the same conclusion on detriment A, finding the direct race discrimination claim well founded.
The second claimant's direct race discrimination claim relating to detriment B was dismissed as not well founded, and the claims relating to detriments C and D were also dismissed as not well founded. The second claimant's victimisation claims relating to detriments B, C and D were dismissed as not well founded. The judgment records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | First claimant. Direct race discrimination in relation to detriment A succeeded. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | First claimant. Direct race discrimination in relation to detriments B and C was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | First claimant. Direct race discrimination in relation to detriment D was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | First claimant. Victimisation claims in relation to detriments B, C and D were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Second claimant. Direct race discrimination in relation to detriment A succeeded. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Second claimant. Direct race discrimination in relation to detriment B was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- rule 52 of the 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.
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.