Case 1301723/2023 · Employment Tribunal
in person accompanied by a relative Mr Raphael Uzor, a solicitor acting in a personal capacity For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301723/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person accompanied by a relative Mr Raphael Uzor, a solicitor acting in a personal capacity For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 22 February 2024 at Centre City Tower, Birmingham, Employment Judge Perry sat alone and heard the claimant in person, accompanied by a relative, Mr Raphael Uzor. The respondents were represented by Miss W Miller, counsel. The case concerned complaints that the respondent indirectly discriminated against the claimant and failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The judgment records only that the claimant's application to strike out the respondents' responses to those complaints was dismissed for the reasons given orally. The extracted text does not record any substantive determination of the underlying complaints, and it contains no remedy or costs award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing: the claimant's application to strike out the respondents' response to the complaint that the respondent indirectly discriminated against the claimant was dismissed for the reasons given orally; the merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing: the claimant's application to strike out the respondents' response to the complaint that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed for the reasons given orally; the merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
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.