Case 3315004/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Grice v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315004/2022
- Decision date
- 5 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shrimplin Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Grice
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Watford before Employment Judge Shrimplin on 5 April 2024, decided that the claimant’s belief was not a protected religious or philosophical belief within the meaning of s10 Equality Act 2010. That threshold finding meant the claimant could not rely on that belief for the Equality Act complaints brought in the case.
The claimant’s claims under s13 Equality Act 2010 for discrimination, s26 for harassment, and s27 for victimisation were each found not well founded and were dismissed. The written record does not set out any separate remedy, because no claim succeeded.
The decision was given orally on 5 April 2024 and later sent to the parties on 7 May 2024. No lay members are listed on the written record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The Tribunal held that the claimant’s belief was not a protected religious or philosophical belief under s10 Equality Act 2010, so the discrimination claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed together with the other Equality Act claims because the underlying belief was found not to be protected. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed together with the other Equality Act claims because the underlying belief was found not to be protected. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s10 Equality Act 2010
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s26 Equality Act 2010
- s27 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.