Case 1303316/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Miss S Smith (Solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303316/2022
- Decision date
- 8 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 8 January 2024, Employment Judge Gaskell struck out the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the protected disclosure detriment claim under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Both were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's unpaid holiday pay claim was also struck out on the same basis.
The respondent's strike-out application was refused in relation to the direct race discrimination and racial harassment claims, which were permitted to proceed but only in relation to a single incident on or about 9 June 2022. The same happened for the direct discrimination and harassment claims on the grounds of sexual orientation, which were allowed to proceed only in relation to a single incident in May 2022.
The direct discrimination and harassment claims on the grounds of religion and belief were struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The direct sex discrimination and sex harassment claim was dismissed after being withdrawn by the claimant. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment. The claimant's working time complaint, alleging a breach of the 48-hour limit, was dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Claims and outcomes
12 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Respondent's strike-out application refused; the direct race discrimination claim may proceed, limited to a single incident occurring on or about 9 June 2022. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Respondent's strike-out application refused; the racial harassment claim may proceed, limited to a single incident occurring on or about 9 June 2022. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination claim on the grounds of religion and belief struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim on the grounds of religion and belief struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 4(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.