Case 1301467/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Miss A Brokenshire (Solicitor) Interpreter: Mr A Adam - Polish — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301467/2022
- Decision date
- 17 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 17 March 2023 before Employment Judge Gaskell, the tribunal considered strike-out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It dismissed the claimant's claims for unpaid wages and "other payments" because they had no reasonable prospect of success. It also dismissed the claimant's indirect discrimination claim on the same basis.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's remaining race discrimination claims, namely direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation, were unaffected by this judgment and would be dealt with in an accompanying case management order. No monetary award was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's claims for unpaid wages and "other payments" were dismissed at a preliminary hearing under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's indirect discrimination claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment says the remaining race discrimination claims for direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were unaffected. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.