Case 1403603/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B King v Thales DIS UK Ltd Heard by Cloud Video — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403603/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the second claim form included a disability discrimination claim. It held that, although disability was referred to in the narrative, no reasonable reading of the document would alert a reader that a disability discrimination claim was being made, and it refused leave to amend to add such a claim.
The tribunal then considered whether the sex discrimination claim in the second proceedings should proceed. It rejected the respondent's issue estoppel argument because the first claim had been treated as unfair dismissal only, but concluded that the sex discrimination claim was an abuse of process because the claimant could have progressed the relevant matters in the first claim had he dealt properly with the tribunal's enquiries.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claim form did not include a disability discrimination claim and refused leave to amend to add such a claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The remaining sex discrimination claim was struck out as an abuse of process. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- issue estoppel
- Henderson v Henderson
- abuse of process
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.