Case 1305984/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Madhar v Secretary of State for Justice PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305984/2020
- Decision date
- 28 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Steward
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Madhar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend his claim to include harassment and additional race discrimination allegations, the removal of the second respondent, the first respondent's strike-out application, and whether to make a deposit order. The tribunal refused the amendment application because the earlier order requiring further particulars had not been complied with and the proposed amendment had not been properly addressed with reasoned argument.
The claimant and first respondent agreed by consent that the second respondent should be removed from the proceedings. The tribunal refused the first respondent's strike-out application, holding that issues about time limits, continuing acts, just and equitable extension, and prospects of success should be determined at a final hearing after evidence.
The tribunal made a deposit order of 500 pounds. It found that, at that stage, there did not seem to be an obvious link between the instances relied upon and the claimant's race and/or religion, and that the claim appeared to have little reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The first respondent's strike-out application was refused, but the tribunal made a deposit order of 500 pounds after finding that there did not seem to be an obvious link between the instances relied upon and the claimant's race and/or religion. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The first respondent's strike-out application was refused, but the tribunal made a deposit order of 500 pounds after finding that there did not seem to be an obvious link between the instances relied upon and the claimant's race and/or religion. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The claimant's application to amend his claim to include a new claim of harassment, and to plead harassment/discrimination in the alternative on the same facts, was refused at the preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 37 Employment Tribunals Regulations 2013
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals Regulations 2013
- continuing acts
- just and equitable to extend time
- little reasonable prospects 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.