Case 1601464/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Marcelo v Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601464/2019
- Decision date
- 16 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Marcelo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 1 April 2021, Employment Judge Hawksworth, sitting alone by CVP, considered Mr A Marcelo's complaints against Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The judgment states that the claimant's complaints had no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The written record does not set out detailed findings on the underlying facts or any liability analysis beyond the strike-out decision. It also records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospects of success under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospects of success under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.