Case 3322069/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Allan Steele v Ministry of Defence — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322069/2019
- Decision date
- 23 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Allan Steele
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was heard by Employment Judge Tobin sitting alone at Watford Hearing Centre by telephone on 20 January 2023. The claimant was represented by a solicitor, as was the respondent.
Following the claimant's email of 18 November 2022 and confirmation by the claimant and his representative at the hearing, the tribunal dismissed upon withdrawal all complaints except the claims of victimisation relating to the termination of the claimant's commission.
The judgment did not determine the reserved victimisation claims and did not address remedy or make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that all complaints, save for victimisation relating to the termination of the claimant's commission, were dismissed upon withdrawal. The specific withdrawn complaints are inferred from the listing categories and should be treated with caution because the judgment text does not individually list them. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment records that all complaints, save for victimisation relating to the termination of the claimant's commission, were dismissed upon withdrawal. The specific withdrawn complaints are inferred from the listing categories and should be treated with caution because the judgment text does not individually list them. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that all complaints, save for victimisation relating to the termination of the claimant's commission, were dismissed upon withdrawal. The specific withdrawn complaints are inferred from the listing categories and should be treated with caution because the judgment text does not individually list them. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The claims of victimisation relating to the termination of the claimant's commission were expressly excluded from the withdrawal dismissal and were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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.