Case 1305343/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Baker v Bar Standards Board — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305343/2023
- Decision date
- 9 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smart Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Baker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment following a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Smart sitting alone at Birmingham (Midlands West) on 9 September 2024, addressing the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications in a claim brought by Ms D Baker, a barrister, against the Bar Standards Board as a qualifications body under the Equality Act 2010. The background concerned historic professional misconduct proceedings against the claimant arising out of a neighbour dispute, convictions which were subsequently overturned by the High Court on appeal, and later civil and employment tribunal litigation. The current claims pleaded harassment, victimisation and race discrimination relating to the respondent's handling of complaints and disclosure of materials between 2018 and 2023.
The Tribunal held that all harassment claims were struck out because it lacked jurisdiction to hear them under section 53(3) of the Equality Act 2010. Allegation 5.1.1 was struck out as res judicata on the basis of issue estoppel and the rule in Henderson v Henderson. The Tribunal indicated that a strike-out warning would be sent to the claimant in respect of allegation 5.1.9. All other strike-out applications by the respondent, and the application for a deposit order, were refused, so the remaining victimisation and discrimination allegations proceed.
The judgment records an apology for the delay in promulgation, which was attributed to a double booking of the date set aside for deliberation. No remedy was awarded at this stage; the only monetary figure noted by Layer 1 (1,000) does not appear in the available extract as a tribunal award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | All harassment claims struck out for want of jurisdiction under section 53(3) of the Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Allegation 5.1.1 struck out as res judicata / issue estoppel under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. A strike-out warning is to be issued in respect of allegation 5.1.9. All other applications to strike out victimisation allegations were refused, so those remaining allegations were not adjudicated on the merits at this preliminary hearing. The application for a deposit order was also refused. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Insofar as race discrimination allegations are pursued as harassment they are struck out (jurisdictional). Other race-related allegations remain live following refusal of the respondent's wider strike-out applications; no substantive merits determination was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 53(3) Equality Act 2010
- Henderson v Henderson (issue estoppel / res judicata)
- section 27 Equality Act 2010 (victimisation)
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.