Case 3301921/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Fasinro v Coyle Personnel Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301921/2024
- Decision date
- 24 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr M Bhatti MBE, Dr B von Maydell-Koch
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O Fasinro
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Watford and chaired by Employment Judge Dick with Mr M Bhatti MBE and Dr B von Maydell-Koch, heard the claim from 19 to 21 May 2025. The claimant, Miss O Fasinro, appeared in person and the respondent, Coyle Personnel Limited, was represented by Mr K Chaudhuri.
The tribunal recorded that the complaint of age discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal. It also found that the complaints of direct race discrimination and direct sex discrimination were not well-founded and dismissed them.
No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment, and the written record contains only the outcome entries rather than detailed reasons for the tribunal's findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct sex discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.