Case 3310694/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v South Quay Hotels Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310694/2021
- Decision date
- 25 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds in person
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 4 July 2023, Employment Judge K J Palmer, sitting alone, determined the claimant's claims against South Quay Hotels Ltd. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that the claimant's claim of direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded, together with the claim of harassment related to race under section 26 and the claim of victimisation under section 27.
The judgment does not set out written reasons beyond the final decision, so no further factual findings or analysis are recorded in the extracted text. The decision therefore establishes the successful claims and their statutory basis, but not a fuller narrative of the underlying events in the written record supplied here.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings and £11,336 for losses between the date of dismissal and the date of new employment. The total sum ordered to be paid by the respondent was £21,336.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | Claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 related to race succeeded. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,336
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £11,336
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.