Case 3302264/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Ramos v Westfield Estates Limited (Company number 06895622) R1 Akbar Ali R2 — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302264/2022
- Decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Ramos
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 20 November 2024 before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone. The respondents did not appear and made no application to participate, so the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21(2). The judgment records that the claimant was Mr L Ramos and the respondents were Westfield Estates Limited and Mr A Ali.
The tribunal found that each respondent contravened section 39(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against the claimant because of sex, amounting to direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010, in the arrangements for deciding to whom to offer employment. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable.
The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the claimant £1,251.18 within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent. The award comprised £1,000 for injury to feelings and £251.18 interest, calculated as interest for 1,146 days at 8% per year. The tribunal made no award for alleged financial loss.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found a contravention of section 39(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 by each respondent, namely direct discrimination because of sex in the arrangements for deciding to whom to offer employment. The respondents were jointly and severally liable. | Upheld | Sex | £1,251 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,251
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 39(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- Rule 21(2) Employment Tribunal Rules
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.