Case 1406265/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Lamb v The Protection Specialist Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1406265/2019
- Decision date
- 14 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Lamb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFurther to the Unless Order sent to the parties on 14 August 2020, which had not been complied with by 21 August 2020, the tribunal dismissed under Rule 38 the complaints under Equality Act 2010 s9 (race), s12 (sexual orientation), s26 (harassment) and s27 (victimisation). The judgment records those complaints as dismissed and does not set out any monetary award or other remedy arising from that order.
The tribunal noted that the claimant’s remaining claim(s) would proceed to hearing. It vacated the telephone case management hearing listed for 5 October 2020 and stated that the case would be listed for a three-hour hearing to deal with commission payments.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 38 after the claimant did not comply with the Unless Order sent on 14 August 2020 by 21 August 2020. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 38 after the claimant did not comply with the Unless Order sent on 14 August 2020 by 21 August 2020. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records the s26 harassment complaint as dismissed under Rule 38 following non-compliance with the Unless Order; it does not specify a protected characteristic for the harassment complaint in the text provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed under Rule 38 after the claimant did not comply with the Unless Order sent on 14 August 2020 by 21 August 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.