Case 1301445/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Belfedal v World of Books Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301445/2022
- Decision date
- 14 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Belfedal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 28 March 2023 before Employment Judge Choudry sitting alone, the tribunal considered applications by both sides to strike out. The claimant alleged direct sex discrimination in relation to warehouse tasks at World of Books Limited, saying that only male workers were allocated Support Work and that women were allocated Scanning Work. The respondent denied that premise and relied on emails and witness evidence said to show that women did undertake Support Work.
Applying Rule 37 and the guidance in cases including Anyanwu and Mechkaroy, the tribunal held that the claim turned on a factual dispute that needed to be resolved at a final hearing and refused the respondent's strike-out application. It also refused the claimant's application to strike out the response, finding that the respondent's conduct in the proceedings was not scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. The tribunal reminded both parties of the overriding objective and the need to cooperate.
The tribunal nevertheless concluded, under Rule 39, that the direct sex discrimination claim had little prospects of success on the way it had been framed and ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £100 as a condition of continuing with the claim. In reaching that figure it said it had considered the claimant's means; the claimant had said he was self-employed, earned about £15,000 to £18,000 a year, sometimes did part-time work for extra money, and had no savings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only; the direct sex discrimination claim was not finally determined. The tribunal refused strike out but made a £100 deposit order as a condition of continuing the claim. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 37 strike out test
- Rule 39 deposit order test
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- Mechkaroy v Citibank NA
- Hemdan v Ishmail and Another
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
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.