Case 1302368/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Brown, solicitor v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1302368/2019
- Decision date
- 13 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr W Brown, solicitor
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 10 January 2020, Employment Judge Broughton held that the Claimant’s sexual harassment claims were presented out of time and were dismissed. The judgment records that those complaints were therefore not permitted to proceed.
The tribunal also held that the principal claims of unfair dismissal and victimisation did not have little or no reasonable prospect of success and would proceed to a full hearing. By consent, the claimant was allowed to rely on matters raised in her amendment application only as background to her other complaints, and the respondent would not advance a bad faith defence in relation to the victimisation complaints.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The sexual harassment claims were presented out of time and were dismissed at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim did not have little or no reasonable prospect of success and would proceed to a full hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the victimisation claim did not have little or no reasonable prospect of success and would proceed to a full hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- little or 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.