Case 6003812/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Ramos v Platinum Cleaning Services South West Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003812/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr L Ramos
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of discrimination on the grounds of sex arising from an advertisement for a female house cleaner. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had issued proceedings against the wrong company, and that the advertisement had not been written or placed by the first or second respondents.
The tribunal also observed that, on the evidence, the claim was probably not best considered as direct discrimination under s.13 because there was no evidence that the business saw, considered, and rejected the claimant's application because of his gender. The claimant's application at the end of the hearing to amend the claim by substituting a different company as respondent was refused, and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The pleaded complaint was discrimination on the grounds of sex. The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was probable that the claimant had issued against the wrong company and the advertisements were not written or placed by the named respondents. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- balance of probabilities
- s.13
- s.19
- Galilee-v-Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis UKEAT 0207/16/RN
- Vaughan-v-Modality [2021] IRLR 97
- Abercrombie and others-v-Aga Rangemaster Ltd [2014] ICR 209
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.