Case 6019392/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Gardener v Greenwich Leisure Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6019392/2024
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Clarke, Ms P Owen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Gardener
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that specified complaints of harassment related to race were well-founded. These concerned comments and actions during a training course on or about 19 March 2024, and an incident on or about 3 November 2024 involving an effigy of the claimant displayed at reception with the claimant's keys and lanyard tied around its neck as a "noose."
The remaining complaints of harassment related to race were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of direct race discrimination and victimisation as not well-founded.
This was a liability judgment only. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out legal tests or remedy figures.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The Tribunal held that specified complaints of harassment related to race were well-founded and succeeded. The judgment is on liability only and does not state any remedy. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | The remaining complaints of harassment related to race were held not well-founded and dismissed. The judgment does not list those remaining complaints. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaints of direct race discrimination were held not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The complaints of victimisation were held not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.