Case 3324332/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3324332/2019
- Decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
- Panel members
- Ms L Jaffe, Mrs J Hancock
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter hearing the case at Watford Tribunal on 25-27 April 2022 before Employment Judge Smeaton, Ms L Jaffe and Mrs J Hancock, the tribunal rejected Mr M Eadie's claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation against the London Borough of Hillingdon. Each claim was held not well-founded and dismissed.
The written record contains only the dispositive orders, not the tribunal's oral reasons. It records that the claimant's deposit of £180 was forfeited and paid to the respondent, and that no other order was made as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010; dismissed. The written record contains only the orders, and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010; dismissed. The written record contains only the orders, and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010; dismissed. The written record contains only the orders, and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £180
- 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.
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.