Case 1300718/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Sall v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2023
- Case reference
- 1300718/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Platt Representation
- Venue
- By Hybrid CVP at Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Sall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerns applications to reconsider an earlier judgment sent to the parties on 20 February 2023. The Claimant applied for reconsideration in respect of a complaint of direct disability discrimination, and the Respondent applied for reconsideration in respect of a complaint of direct race discrimination.
The Tribunal confirmed the judgment in respect of the direct disability discrimination complaint. It revoked the judgment in respect of direct race discrimination, stating that the earlier decision to extend time had been based on a misunderstanding of the Claimant's position. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the direct race discrimination complaint, which was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment on reconsideration confirms the earlier judgment in respect of the complaint of direct disability discrimination, but the supplied text does not state the underlying outcome of that complaint. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment revokes the earlier judgment in respect of direct race discrimination and states that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint, which is therefore dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 70 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 71 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.