Case 1300410/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300410/2020
- Decision date
- 13 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Appearance
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 13 November 2020 before Employment Judge Broughton, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to comply with the order of EJ Perry dated 21 May 2020 requiring him to explain how any of his complaints fell within the tribunal's jurisdiction. The claimant said he had not responded because he expected the claims to be struck out.
The claimant accepted that he had no standing to bring a complaint under the Equality Act 2010, whether under section 18 or otherwise. He also accepted that he was not an employee and therefore had no standing to bring a detriment claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996, whether related to his paternity leave or otherwise.
In light of those admissions, the tribunal found that there were no claims before it that fell within its jurisdiction and dismissed the proceedings. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claimant acknowledged that he had no standing to bring a complaint under the Equality Act 2010, whether under section 18 or otherwise. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | The claimant acknowledged that he was not an employee and so had no standing to bring a detriment claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996, whether related to his paternity leave or otherwise; the judgment does not identify a more specific statutory cause of action. | 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.