Case 1400727/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Mboma v Europcar Group Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400727/2019
- Decision date
- 27 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Mboma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dawson sat at a preliminary hearing on 21 July 2020. The tribunal held that the claimant's harassment claims in respect of acts committed from, or in, August 2018 were presented within such period as it thought just and equitable. That ruling allowed those harassment claims to proceed, but it was not a final liability decision on the merits.
The tribunal also stated that the question of whether alleged harassment before August 2018 formed part of conduct extending over a period ending in or after August 2018 would be determined at the final hearing. In the same decision, the respondent's applications to strike out the claims on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success, and for a deposit order on the basis that the claims had little prospect of success, were both dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Preliminary ruling only. The tribunal held that the claimant's harassment claims in respect of acts committed from, or in, August 2018 were presented within such period as it considered just and equitable. It did not finally determine the harassment allegations at this hearing. The judgment also says that whether alleged harassment before August 2018 formed part of conduct extending over a period ending in or after August 2018 would be determined at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable
- no reasonable prospect of success
- little 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.