Case 6016044/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Colin Blakemore v SBD Apparel Ltd Heard in Sheffield — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016044/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Colin Blakemore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ayre found that the claimant Colin Blakemore's complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race against SBD Apparel Ltd were not well founded and were dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant's grievance had in fact been investigated (he had attended the grievance meeting) and that his comparator Mr Bashir Omar had not been investigated to a different standard.
In relation to the harassment complaint, the Tribunal found that an HR comment that 'Mr Bashir was a protected characteristic but the claimant is not' was related to race and was unwanted, but did not have the purpose or effect of creating a humiliating, degrading or offensive environment. It was a one-off slip of the tongue almost immediately corrected, and even if it had had the proscribed effect it would have been unreasonable for it to do so in context.
The respondent's costs application of £20,000 was refused. The judge held that the harassment claim had at least reasonable prospects of success (two of three elements of the test were made out), the costs warning letter had been sent only five days before the final hearing, and that the claimant was a litigant in person who had limited his claim to two specific allegations. Costs in the Employment Tribunal are still the exception. PDF text was truncated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race not well founded; the comment was a one-off slip of the tongue almost immediately corrected. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race not well founded; the comment was a one-off slip of the tongue almost immediately corrected. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and anor 2012 ICR 420
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.