Case 3304074/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Forbes v And LHR Airport Limited Full Merits Hearing — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304074/2018
- Decision date
- 17 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms F Betts, Mr C Juden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Forbes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a full merits hearing in Reading on 15-17 December 2021, the Tribunal heard evidence on oath and read the parties' documents. In a unanimous judgment dated 17 December 2021, it rejected Mr O Forbes's complaint of direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found that he was not subjected to race discrimination and dismissed that complaint.
The Tribunal also rejected the complaints of race-related harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 and victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010. It found that Mr Forbes was not subjected to race-related harassment or victimisation, so those complaints also failed and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal found the Claimant was not subjected to race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal found the Claimant was not subjected to race-related harassment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal found the Claimant was not subjected to victimisation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
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.