Case 1600885/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B K Lee v Shepphard Enterprises Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600885/2021
- Decision date
- 30 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B K Lee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerns a complaint of direct race discrimination brought by Mr B K Lee against Shepphard Enterprises Limited. By letter dated 15 March 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaint should not be struck out, because he had not complied with the tribunal's directions dated 2 December 2021 and 26 January 2022 and because the complaint appeared not to have been actively pursued.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, it struck out the complaint of direct race discrimination.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim(s) remained listed for preliminary hearing on 13 April 2022. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal struck out the complaint of direct race discrimination after a letter dated 15 March 2022 invited representations or a hearing. It found the claimant had not complied with directions dated 2 December 2021 and 26 January 2022, and had failed to make representations or sufficient representations against strike out. | Struck out | Race | — |
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.