Case 1309263/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The University Of Birmingham — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309263/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 2 December 2021, Employment Judge V Jones found that the claimant was at all material times a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The claimant's direct discrimination claim, the Fixed-Term Employees Regulations claim, and the breach of contract claim were each struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant's direct discrimination claim because of religious belief was dismissed after the claimant withdrew it. The respondent's application to strike out, or alternatively for a deposit order in relation to, the protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 and the victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed, and those claims were allowed to proceed to a substantive hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant was found to be a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010; the direct discrimination claim was struck out under paragraph 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim of direct discrimination because of religious belief was dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claim. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | Respondent's application to strike out or obtain a deposit order on the protected disclosure detriment claim was dismissed; the claim was to proceed to a substantive hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Respondent's application to strike out or obtain a deposit order on the victimisation claim was dismissed; the claim was to proceed to a substantive hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 39 deposit order
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.