Case 1311159/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the First v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1311159/2020
- Decision date
- 10 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote preliminary hearing on 9 August 2021, Employment Judge Hughes refused the respondents' application to strike out the claims relating to the protected characteristic of marital status. The tribunal said it could not be said that those claims had no reasonable prospect of success. It also refused the respondents' application for a deposit order, because it could not be said that the claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal recorded that the claims against the third respondent were dismissed on withdrawal, and that the unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent was also dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award was made at this hearing.
The tribunal listed a one-day CVP hearing for 20 October 2021 to consider the claimant's application to amend the claim to add disability discrimination complaints. If disputed, that later hearing was also to determine whether the claimant was disabled at the material time and, if so, whether the respondents knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment refers to claims concerning the protected characteristic of marital status. The respondents' strike-out and deposit-order applications in relation to those claims were refused, and the claims against the third respondent were later dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent was dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect 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.
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.