Case 3318907/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3318907/2019
- Decision date
- 1 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr S Bury, Mr P English
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Watford, sitting on 1 to 3 February 2022 before Employment Judge Bedeau with members Mr S Bury and Mr P English, recorded that the claimant appeared in person and Tesco Stores Ltd was represented by counsel. The written judgment contains only brief dispositive findings and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons are included in the record provided.
The claim of victimisation was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The claim of direct race discrimination was not determined on its merits in the written record; it was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The tribunal therefore disposed of the case without any upheld discrimination finding.
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £1,750. No separate employment tribunal compensation award, injury to feelings award, or other merits-based remedy is recorded in the written judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal stated that the claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the direct race discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,750
- across all upheld claims
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.