Case 3205914/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Marson v Chaucer Logistics Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205914/2021
- Decision date
- 25 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Marson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 9 September 2021 in the London East Employment Tribunals. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that Chaucer Logistics Limited discriminated against Miss S Marson because of her race and to her detriment by the comments made to her during a job interview, as set out at paragraph 8 of the ET1 form. The judgment records a liability finding only and does not provide further detail about the interview comments beyond that description.
No remedy was determined in this judgment. The tribunal stated that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be decided at a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Rule 21 judgment on liability only. The tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the claimant because of her race and to her detriment by comments made during a job interview, as pleaded in paragraph 8 of the ET1. Remedy was left to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.