Case 3321646/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Beemah, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321646/2019
- Decision date
- 12 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KJ Palmer
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Beemah, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a doctoral student at Coventry University, had entered a tripartite Studentship Agreement with Coventry and TWI Limited on 15 September 2016. He alleged that his supervisor, Mr Tyler London, had subjected him to race discrimination, and the tribunal recorded claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation. The issue before Employment Judge KJ Palmer was whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear those claims under the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed at preliminary hearing for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal made no substantive finding on the merits of the direct race discrimination allegation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed at preliminary hearing for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal made no substantive finding on the merits of the harassment allegation related to race. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed at preliminary hearing for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal made no substantive finding on the merits of the victimisation allegation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Ready Mix Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions three questions
- Autoclenz principle
- section 56(6) Equality Act 2010 vocational training definition
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.