Case 3303312/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Kotecha, uncle of the claimant For the First v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303312/2019
- Decision date
- 9 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Kotecha, uncle of the claimant For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Watford by CVP on 9 September 2020, Employment Judge Manley recorded that the Second Respondent, Mr Minesh Patel, and the Third Respondent, Mr Tappasvi Mehta, were joined as respondents to the proceedings in relation to allegations of age discrimination, sex discrimination and harassment.
This short judgment does not decide the merits of those allegations and records no findings on liability or remedy. It is therefore a procedural decision only, establishing the participation of the individual respondents in the case.
The record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The Second and Third Respondents were joined as respondents in relation to this allegation; the judgment did not determine liability. | Other | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The Second and Third Respondents were joined as respondents in relation to this allegation; the judgment did not determine liability. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing only. The Second and Third Respondents were joined as respondents in relation to this allegation; the judgment did not determine liability. | Other | — | — |
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.