Case 1300631/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Lynch (lay representative) For the v Mr L. Wilson — 2018
- Case reference
- 1300631/2017
- Decision date
- 1 June 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Lynch (lay representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 31 May 2018, Employment Judge Perry sat alone and dealt with the pleaded claims. The claimant withdrew the direct discrimination claim based on religion and belief, and the judgment also records withdrawal of the claims against the second respondent, Cllr L Trickett.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's direct race discrimination complaint and his constructive unfair dismissal complaint because both had no reasonable prospects of success. No remedy was awarded in this judgment, which was limited to case management and strike-out issues.
The claimant's sole remaining complaint, victimisation, was allowed to proceed to a hearing on grounds (8) to (11) in his letter of 12 May 2017, and the judge made a separate case management order.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination based on religion and belief was dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the claims against the second respondent, Cllr L Trickett, were dismissed on withdrawal, but does not specify a separate legal head. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's direct race discrimination complaint was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal complaint was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.