Case 3305171/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr M Clayton, Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 3305171/2018
- Decision date
- 1 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Cambridge on 28, 29, 30 and 31 October and 1 November 2019 before Employment Judge Johnson. Mrs S Sibanda appeared in person and the Respondent, Hc-One Oval Limited, was represented by Mr M Clayton, Solicitor.
The judgment records that the Claimant's claim of detriments caused by making a protected disclosure was not well founded and was dismissed. It also records that the Claimant's claim of direct race discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. It also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made at the hearing or in writing within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records a claim for detriments caused by making a protected disclosure. It was dismissed as not well founded. Written reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not included in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records a claim of direct race discrimination. It was dismissed as not well founded. Written reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not included in the extracted text. | 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.