Case 3305394/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Y Kavanagh v B&M Retail Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305394/2023
- Decision date
- 10 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D. Sutton, Dr C. Whitehouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Y Kavanagh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Watford on 29, 30 and 31 May 2024 before Employment Judge McNeill KC with Mr D. Sutton and Dr C. Whitehouse as lay members. At the start of the hearing the tribunal clarified the issues to be determined and refused the respondent's application to postpone the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim that B & M Retail Ltd directly discriminated against her because of race by dismissing her. It also dismissed the claimant's claims that Ms Paula Turney, in the course of her employment, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race by making racist comments on 14 November 2022, 3 January 2023, and more generally in the workplace.
The judgment records that the full reasons for dismissing the claimant's complaints, and for refusing the postponement application, were given orally at the hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim under section 13(1) Equality Act 2010 alleging direct race discrimination by dismissal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim under section 13(1) Equality Act 2010 alleging direct race discrimination by Ms Paula Turney through racist comments on 14 November 2022, 3 January 2023, and more generally in the workplace. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13(1) 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.