Case 1306649/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sidhu v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306649/2019
- Decision date
- 15 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sidhu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned case management applications heard in private at Birmingham Employment Tribunal on 18 February 2020. The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims as having no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively for a deposit order on the basis that the claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out and deposit applications. The judgment did not determine the merits of the claimant's existing claims.
The claimant also applied to amend the ET1 to add new claims of detriment on grounds of a public interest disclosure. That amendment application was refused, so those proposed claims were not added by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out the claimant's existing claims as having no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively for a deposit order on the basis of little reasonable prospect of success, was refused. The merits of the claims were not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant's application to amend the ET1 to add new claims of detriment on grounds of a public interest disclosure was refused; the proposed claims were not adjudicated on their merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
- public interest disclosure
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.