Case 3311694/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Okunowo (solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311694/2021
- Decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Okunowo (solicitor) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing at Watford on 3 February 2023 before Employment Judge King, the tribunal dealt with claims under s15 Equality Act 2010, s19 indirect discrimination (race) and (age), s26 harassment related to disability, and s27 victimisation. The written judgment records that the claims had not been particularised.
The tribunal stated that, following the unless order of Employment Judge Bedeau dated 20 October 2022, the claims were dismissed and stood as struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded, and the written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Recorded as a s15 Equality Act 2010 claim. The judgment states that it was dismissed and stood as struck out following the unless order of Employment Judge Bedeau dated 20 October 2022 because it had not been particularised. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded as the s19 Equality Act 2010 indirect discrimination claim relating to race. The judgment states that it was dismissed and stood as struck out following the unless order because it had not been particularised. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Recorded as the s19 Equality Act 2010 indirect discrimination claim relating to age. The judgment states that it was dismissed and stood as struck out following the unless order because it had not been particularised. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Harassment | Recorded as the s26 Equality Act 2010 harassment claim related to disability. The judgment states that it was dismissed and stood as struck out following the unless order because it had not been particularised. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded as the s27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation claim. The judgment states that it was dismissed and stood as struck out following the unless order because it had not been particularised. | Struck out | — | — |
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.