Case 1306852/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Morrison, Lay representative v Mr. Jackson, solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306852/2020
- Decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Morrison, Lay representative
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Williams brought claims of race discrimination, holiday pay, unlawful deductions, breach of contract, and claims described as payment for machinery and dividend/shareholding. At the start of the hearing the tribunal clarified the pleaded case because the claimant was a litigant in person with a lay representative, and it proceeded only on the case before it.
On the direct race discrimination claim, the claimant said he was an African Caribbean male who had been placed on sick leave and not furloughed, which he said financially penalised him. He did not rely on an actual comparator and instead relied on a hypothetical one. Applying the cautious approach to strike out and deposit orders in discrimination cases, and citing authorities including Malik, Mechkarov, Madarassy and Anyanwu, the tribunal held that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success but should not be struck out at that stage. It therefore made a deposit order of £400, taking account of the claimant's means, and listed the matter for final hearing.
The remaining claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the breach of contract claim based on an alleged pay rise from 27 November 2018 had no reasonable prospect of success because it was brought while employment was ongoing and there was no written support for the alleged promise, whereas the February 2020 contract was said to be the whole agreement. The claim for a furlough shortfall of £506.46 failed because the claimant could not particularise the figure and the respondent's documents showed payment had been made, and the separate £1,116.96 claim was recharacterised during the hearing as holiday pay for 2021, outside the scope of the August 2020 claim form.
The tribunal also dismissed the £111.70 holiday pay claim because the payslip showed it had been paid. It dismissed the machinery and dividend/shareholding claims as further breach of contract claims that could not be pursued while the claimant was still employed and were not referred to in the February 2020 contract. The judgment ended by listing the direct race discrimination claim only for a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for a shortfall of furlough pay for 22 May 2020 and 29 May 2020, said to amount to £506.46. The claimant could not particularise how the figure was reached and the respondent's documents showed furlough payment had been made. The tribunal dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal did not decide the merits of the direct race discrimination claim at this hearing. It found the claim had little reasonable prospect of success, but not no reasonable prospect of success, and made a deposit order of £400 as a condition of it continuing. The case was listed for final hearing on this claim only. | Other | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay for the May 2020 bank holiday at £111.70. The tribunal said the wage slip showed the claimant had been paid and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for an alleged oral promise of a salary increase of £1 per hour from 27 November 2018. The tribunal held the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because it was brought while the claimant was still employed and there was no written support for the alleged promise; the February 2020 contract described itself as the whole agreement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim initially put as furlough pay of £1,116.96 but then clarified during the hearing as 5 days' holiday pay said to arise between January 2021 and May 2021. The tribunal held that this could not form part of the August 2020 claim form and dismissed it. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- rule 37 strike out
- rule 39 deposit order
- rule 34(2) means inquiry
- rule 34(5) deposit consequences
- Garcia v The Leadership Factor Limited
- Hemdan v Ishmail & Al-Megraby
- Jansen Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Malik v Birmingham City Council
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.