Case 1601475/2024 · Employment Tribunal
IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1601475/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Swansea on 4 and 5 February 2025 before Employment Judge S Povey. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel, Mr Mortin. This decision is confined to the respondent's strike-out applications and was given orally at the hearing, with written reasons not provided in the written record.
The tribunal held that the respondent's application to strike out the complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of marriage was made out. The stated basis was that the complaint had no reasonable prospects of success, and that complaint was therefore struck out.
The respondent's applications to strike out the complaints of direct discrimination on grounds of race and religion were not made out. Those applications were dismissed, so those complaints were not struck out by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | Respondent's application to strike out the complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of marriage was made out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Race discrimination | Respondent's application to strike out the complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of race was not made out and was dismissed; the underlying complaint was not determined on the merits in this decision. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Respondent's application to strike out the complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of religion was not made out and was dismissed; the underlying complaint was not determined on the merits in this decision. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
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.