Case 3307311/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Raffell (employment litigator) For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307311/2020
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- L Hoey, I Middleton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Raffell (employment litigator) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 17, 18 and 19 May 2022 before Employment Judge Anderson with lay members L Hoey and I Middleton. The written record identifies Mr M Raffell as representative for the claimant and Ms C Jennings as counsel for the respondent.
The judgment records that the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claims were dismissed on withdrawal. It also records that the claimant's claims of direct discrimination, harassment, and constructive discriminatory dismissal on the grounds of sexual orientation were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. As a result, this document contains the tribunal's outcomes but not the detailed reasoning behind them.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claims were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Direct discrimination claim on grounds of sexual orientation. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim on grounds of sexual orientation. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of constructive discriminatory dismissal on the grounds of sexual orientation. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
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.