Case 3305234/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Campbell v Crouch Logistics Limited and 3 others — 2021

Case reference: 3305234/2021
Decision date: 21 September 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ord

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

Mr C Campbell

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because no response to the claim had been submitted by the First or Second Respondent.

The tribunal found that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the First Respondent. It also found that the Claimant was the victim of unlawful discrimination on the protected characteristic of race and victimisation at the hands of the First and Second Respondents, as alleged in the Claimant's statement of case.

No remedy was determined in this judgment. The tribunal stated that a remedy hearing would be fixed in due course.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Rule 21 judgment entered after no response was submitted by the First or Second Respondent; unfair dismissal finding was against the First Respondent.	Upheld	—	—
Race discrimination	Rule 21 judgment entered after no response was submitted by the First or Second Respondent; the judgment states the Claimant was the victim of unlawful discrimination on the protected characteristic of race at the hands of the First and Second Respondents as alleged in the statement of case.	Upheld	Race	—
Victimisation	The judgment refers to victimisation alongside race in the discrimination finding. Victimisation is extracted as a distinct upheld claim, but the brief judgment gives no further particulars.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.