Employment Tribunal Upholds Claims of Racial Harassment

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 6019392/2024

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Manchester On: 14, 15 and 16 January 26 Before: Employment Judge Cookson Mr A [NAME]:

Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY

1. It is the unanimous judgment of the Tribunal that the following complaints of harassment related to race are well-founded and succeed: a. On or about 19 March 2024 during a training course [NAME] shouted out “No, you don’t want [NAME] as a casualty, they’re ‘sinkers b. On or about 19 March 2024 during the training course [NAME] told another participant, [APPELLANT], to swap roles with the claimant c. On or about 3 November 2024 an effigy of the claimant was hung from the [NAME] in the middle of reception. The claimant’s keys and lanyard had been tied around the effigy’s neck as a ‘noose.’

2. The remaining complaints of harassment related to race are not well-founded and are dismissed. 3. The complaints of direct race discrimination are not well-founded are dismissed. 4. The complaints of victimisation are not well-founded and are dismissed.

Case Number: 6019392/2024

2 Approved by: Employment Judge Cookson 16 January 2026 Judgment sent to the parties on: 19 January 2026

…………………………………… For the Tribunal:

Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment- rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/

Case Number: 6019392/2024

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Manchester (Partially by Video) On: 20 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge Cookson Mr [NAME]:

Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]

The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums:

1) Compensation for injury to feelings:

£23,500.00 2) Interest on compensation for injury to feelings calculated in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996: 8% for 617 days £3,177.97 3) Total award: £26,677.97

Approved by: Employment Judge Cookson 20 March 2026

Case Number: 6019392/2024

2 Judgment sent to the parties on 20 May 2026 For the Tribunal:

Case Number: 6019392/2024

3

NOTICE

THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (INTEREST) ORDER 1990 ARTICLE 12

Case number: 6019392/2024

Name of case: D [APPELLANT] v [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] is payable when an Employment Tribunal makes an award or determination requiring one party to proceedings to pay a sum of money to another party, apart from sums representing costs or expenses.

No interest is payable if the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the date the Tribunal sent the written record of the decision to the parties. The date the Tribunal sent the written record of the decision to the parties is called the relevant decision day.

Interest starts to accrue from the day immediately after the relevant decision day. That is called the calculation day.

The rate of interest payable is the rate specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 on the relevant decision day. This is known as the stipulated rate of interest.

The Secretary of the Tribunal is required to give you notice of the relevant decision day, the calculation day, and the stipulated rate of interest in your case. They are as follows:

the relevant decision day in this case is: 20 May 2026

the calculation day in this case is: 21 May 2026

the stipulated rate of interest is: 8% per annum.

For the Employment Tribunal Office

Case Number: 6019392/2024

4

GUIDANCE NOTE

1. There is more information about Tribunal judgments here, which you should read with this guidance note: www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-tribunal-hearings- judgment-guide-t426

If you do not have access to the internet, you can ask for a paper copy by telephoning the Tribunal office dealing with the [RESPONDENT].

2. The payment of interest on Employment Tribunal awards is governed by The Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. Interest is payable on Employment Tribunal awards if they remain wholly or partly unpaid more than 14 days after the relevant decision day. Sums in the award that represent costs or expenses are excluded. Interest starts to accrue from the day immediately after the relevant decision day, which is called the calculation day.

3. The date of the relevant decision day in your case is set out in the Notice. If the judgment is paid in full by that date, no interest will be payable. If the judgment is not paid in full by that date, interest will start to accrue from the next day.

4. Requesting written reasons after you have received a written judgment does not change the date of the relevant decision day.

5. Interest will be calculated as simple interest accruing from day to day on any part of the sum of money awarded by the Tribunal that remains unpaid.

6. If the [APPELLANT] paying the Tribunal award is required to pay part of it to a public authority by way of tax or National Insurance, no interest is payable on that part.

7. If the Secretary of State has claimed any part of the sum awarded by the Tribunal in a recoupment notice, no interest is payable on that part.

8. If the sum awarded is varied, either because the Tribunal reconsiders its own judgment, or following an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal or a higher court, interest will still be payable from the calculation day but it will be payable on the new sum not the sum originally awarded.

9. The online information explains how Employment Tribunal awards are enforced. The interest element of an award is enforced in the same way.

Case No: 6019392/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

The respondent’s application dated 10 March 2026 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 19 January 2026 is refused.

Employment Judge Cookson has concluded that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. She has reached that decision for the reasons set below.

REASONS

1. The respondent has sought reconsideration of a judgment partially upholding complaints of race discrimination which was determined on the basis that the [RESPONDENT] was not contested by the respondent.

2. The respondent relies on ill-health issues which he says materially affected his ability to manage administrative and legal matters in the period following a preliminary hearing for case management purposes on 23 June 2025.

3. At the time of the case management hearing before Employment Judge [RESPONDENT] had been submitted, the respondent having failed to comply with the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 in seeking an extension of time for filing a response. It is clear from her case management order that [NAME] explained the process for submitting a response late and listed the hearing anticipating that an application to submit a late response would be made. The importance of the respondent acting promptly is clear. She identified the complaints to be determined, set the [RESPONDENT] down for final hearing, and made case management orders for both parties to comply with for that hearing.

Case No: 6019392/2024

4. However, no application to submit a late response was ever made. The respondent did not comply with case management orders and despite being aware of the hearing, did not attend the final hearing or offer the tribunal any explanation for non-attendance.

5. The final hearing went ahead, and a judgment was sent to the parties. A remedy hearing has been listed for 20 March 2026. In early February the respondent sought written reasons for the judgment and indicated an intention to appeal the decision, but had still not sought to defend the [RESPONDENT]. The employment judge questioned whether a reconsideration application was to be made, anticipating that may impact on the remedy hearing. It appears to be that which has prompted the respondent to submit a reconsideration application and response to the [RESPONDENT] with a request for extension of time which has been refused. That is dealt with under separate cover.

6. The application for reconsideration is supported by some screen shots of Mr [NAME] records showing him experiencing extremely high blood pressure and being treated for that and gout, but there is no further medical evidence and no evidence of any absence from work.

The law

7. Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 sets out the procedure for reconsideration, on the grounds that the interests of justice are such that reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 68.

8. Under rule 68, a judgment will only be reconsidered where it is ‘necessary in the interests of justice to do so’. This does not mean that in every case where a litigant is unsuccessful, he or she is automatically entitled to a reconsideration: virtually every unsuccessful litigant thinks that the interests of justice require the decided outcome to be reconsidered. Instead, a tribunal dealing with the question of reconsideration must seek to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with cases ‘fairly and justly’ — rule 3 This includes:

a. ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing b. dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues c. avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings d. avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues; and e. saving expense.

9. In [COMPANY] v [NAME] 2015 ICR D11, EAT, Her Honour Judge Eady QC accepted that the wording ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ in rule 70 (as it then was) allows employment tribunals a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a judgment is appropriate in the circumstances. However, this discretion must be exercised judicially, which means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the review or reconsideration, but also to the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation’.

Case No: 6019392/2024

Application to this case

10. Under an earlier iteration of the Tribunal Rules, the previous 2004 Rules, then rule 34(3)(c) provided a ground for review if the decision was made in the absence of a party. This is a matter that is now encompassed within the single ‘interests of justice’ ground. However, it is not generally in the interests of justice that parties in litigation should be given a second bite of the cherry simply because they have failed to attend a hearing, without good and genuine reason. That must be particularly the case where a [NAME], presumably with significant resources available to it, has been aware of a hearing for any months and has not engaged with the legal process at all.

11. The employment judge has sympathy for the ill-health [NAME] has experienced and does not seek to trivialize that, but the evidence provided in support of this application wholly fails to explain why the respondent did not take any steps to deal with this case in the meantime. Mr [NAME] has not provided any evidence that he was off work and, even if he was, it has not been explained why dealing with this litigation could not have been passed to colleagues or a [NAME] to deal with. The respondent is a [NAME] and is a [NAME]. It must have governance arrangements in place. Clearly it has a dedicated HR team in which Mr [NAME] is a senior manager, that much is apparent from his details. This is not a case of a respondent which is a [NAME] without the resources to manage litigation if someone is ill. It does not appear to be suggested that Mr [NAME] ill health was such that he would have been able to give instructions for this matter to be dealt with whilst he was incapacitated. No explanation for his failure to give such instructions is offered. No explanation for failing to inform the Tribunal or the claimant of the reason for the respondent’s failure to engage with the [RESPONDENT] is provided.

12. It is in the interests of all parties that there is finality in litigation except in exceptional circumstances and those exceptional circumstances do not include that a party who has failed to respond appropriately to a case despite apparently having the resources to do so (in terms of the respondent itself). The impression created is that this respondent decided to wait and see what would happen with the [RESPONDENT] and now seeks to participate and wants to be heard by the tribunal because they do not like the outcome.

13. It is not therefore in the interests of justice that the original decision be varied or revoked and there is no reasonable prospect of the application succeeding

Employment Judge Cookson

Date 17 March 2026

Case No: 6019392/2024

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

17 March 2026

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE