Case 3323826/2016 · Employment Tribunal

Mr L Harvey v The City of Oxford Bus Services Limited t/a Oxford Bus Company — 2017

Case reference: 3323826/2016
Decision date: 14 September 2017
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Ms P A Breslin, Mr J Appleton

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L Harvey

Respondent

The City of Oxford Bus Services Limited t/a Oxford Bus Company

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal at Reading on 24, 25 and 26 April 2017, with tribunal discussion on 17 May 2017, found that Mr L Harvey’s complaint of indirect discrimination against The City of Oxford Bus Services Limited t/a Oxford Bus Company was well founded and succeeded. The judgment records that the tribunal was constituted by Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, sitting with Ms P A Breslin and Mr J Appleton.

The tribunal dismissed Mr Harvey’s complaints of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation as not well founded. The judgment does not set out any remedy or compensation figures, and no separate monetary award is recorded in the extracted text.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Religion or belief discrimination	Indirect discrimination complaint succeeded.	Upheld	Religion or belief	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Direct discrimination complaint dismissed.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Harassment	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Victimisation	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.