Case 1403124/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kaye v West Sussex County Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403124/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kaye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in person on 14 April 2023, Employment Judge Rayner recorded that the claimant's first claim had been amended and that the parties had agreed a list of issues covering the claims the claimant wished to pursue. The tribunal noted that the claimant accepted the second claim, 1403124/2022, duplicated the application to amend and was therefore superfluous and unnecessary.
The respondent applied to strike out claim 1403124/2022 on that basis, relying on rule 37. The claimant did not object. The judgment therefore struck out each of the complaints of disability discrimination in claim 1403124/2022.
The judgment also records that the remaining claim, 1400774/2022 as amended, would continue and remained listed for a nine-day hearing on 23 to 31 October and 1 to 2 November 2023. No monetary remedy was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Each of the complaints of disability discrimination in claim 1403124/2022 was struck out under rule 37 because the claim duplicated the amended first claim and the agreed list of issues, so it was superfluous and unnecessary. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.