Case 3206012/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Keith Charles v London Borough of Hackney — 2025
- Case reference
- 3206012/2022
- Decision date
- 15 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
- Venue
- London East
- Panel members
- Mrs B Saund, Ms T Jansen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Keith Charles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed Mr Keith Charles’s complaints against the London Borough of Hackney. It found that his unfair dismissal complaint, his wrongful dismissal/breach of contract complaints concerning notice pay, and his direct race discrimination complaints were not well founded. The judgment was dated 15 September 2025, following a hearing in September 2025 at London East Employment Tribunal.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment records no factual findings or legal tests explaining the dismissals and no monetary award. It states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or in writing within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes these complaints together as wrongful dismissal/breach of contract (notice pay). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.