Case 1400099/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mrs Bamford, in person PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400099/2022
- Decision date
- 5 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing held by telephone on 24 June 2022 before Employment Judge Smail, the Claimant's application to add race discrimination claims was refused. The judgment records that oral reasons were given for that refusal, but no substantive discrimination claim was determined on the merits in this decision.
The judgment also records a consent arrangement about the Claimant's claim of monies owed. The Respondents were to pay £1,344 by 8 July 2022 on account, leaving a balance of £576 in dispute. The parties agreed that the Claimant had worked 96 hours, and the only issue on the remaining sum was the hourly rate, with the Claimant saying £20 per hour and the Respondents saying £14 per hour. Directions were made for documents, an index and a bundle, and for Employment Judge Smail to determine the disputed balance on the papers.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The Claimant's application to add race discrimination claims was refused at the preliminary hearing; no race discrimination claim was added or determined on the merits in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.