Case 3320837/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R O’Dair (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3320837/2019
- Decision date
- 16 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R O’Dair (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 18 May 2020, before Employment Judge Wyeth, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. The complaints listed were automatic constructive unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure under s103A ERA, detriment for making a protected disclosure under s47B ERA, direct race discrimination under s13 EqA, harassment related to race under s26 EqA, and victimisation under s27 EqA.
The judgment does not record any findings on the merits of those complaints. It records only that the claims were withdrawn and therefore dismissed, so there were no liability findings, no remedy assessment, and no monetary award. The only protected characteristic engaged by the listed Equality Act complaints was race.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic constructive unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure under s103A ERA; dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making a protected disclosure under s47B ERA; dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s13 EqA; dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race under s26 EqA; dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s27 EqA; dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
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.