Case 6015072/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015072/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mrs L Salmon, Mrs L Durrant
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a four-day CVP hearing on 9–12 March 2026, the Tribunal unanimously dismissed Mr Sunil Chacko’s claim for unfair dismissal and his claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal also unanimously dismissed Mr Chacko’s claims for direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and harassment related to race under section 26 of that Act. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not record the Tribunal’s factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim failed and was dismissed; no written reasons are included. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed; no written reasons are included. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claims under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed; no written reasons are included. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claims related to race under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed; no written reasons are included. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.