Case 3307721/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McLean-Benjamin v Hornsey School for Girls and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307721/2023
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Caiden
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs B Saund, Dr B Von Maydell Koch
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C McLean-Benjamin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of direct race discrimination and direct sex discrimination arising from his agency work placement. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and respondent witnesses and considered the agreed issues from the preliminary hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claims against the First Respondent. It found that the claimant had not established less favourable treatment because of race or sex in relation to the relevant meeting, being asked to leave, the ending of the engagement, or the request for a replacement. It concluded that the First Respondent's decisions were based on its assessment of what had happened and the information it had received, not on race or sex.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim against the Second Respondent. It found that Kirsty McKelvie did not have more information than she passed on at the relevant time, that the initial handling was connected with a potential safeguarding issue and the Second Respondent's policy, and that the same approach would have been taken irrespective of sex or race.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination against the First Respondent was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination against the First Respondent was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination against the Second Respondent was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment's dispositive paragraph repeats direct race discrimination for the Second Respondent, but the introduction and reasons describe claims of direct race and direct sex discrimination against both respondents. This entry reflects the stated sex discrimination claim against the Second Respondent. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Hewage
- Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Beck [2009] EWCA Civ 619
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.