Case 3330925/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Singh, counsel. For the v Mr. Hare, solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 3330925/2018
- Decision date
- 15 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal
- Venue
- Amersham
- Panel members
- Mr. W. Dykes, Ms S. Hamill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Singh, counsel. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Amersham over 13 to 16 January 2020, with 15 January 2020 in chambers, before Employment Judge Heal sitting with Mr. W. Dykes and Ms S. Hamill. The claimant was represented by Mr. Singh, counsel, and the respondent by Mr. Hare, solicitor.
The judgment records that the complaints of unfair dismissal and of discrimination on grounds of race and religion or belief were not well founded. All of those complaints were dismissed.
No monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of discrimination on grounds of race and religion or belief were not well founded and dismissed; this claim is extracted from that grouped complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of discrimination on grounds of race and religion or belief were not well founded and dismissed; this claim is extracted from that grouped complaint. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.