Case 1403061/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms S King, Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403061/2020
- Decision date
- 4 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richardson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol video hearing on 13 May 2021, Employment Judge A Richardson dealt with the Claimant's claims against Nationwide Platforms Limited. The judgment records that the Claimant's gender reassignment discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal also found that the Claimant's direct race discrimination, unfair dismissal, breach of contract (notice pay), and unlawful deduction from wages claims had no reasonable prospect of success. Those claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was 'dismissed on withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | Gender reassignment | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This was the notice pay claim; struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) ETs (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) 2013 Schedule 1
- no 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.