Case 1602979/2023 · Employment Tribunal
MR WALKER (LITIGATION CONSULTANT) FOR THE v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602979/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace
Parties
1 namedClaimant
MR WALKER (LITIGATION CONSULTANT) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the Respondents' applications to strike out the claims, or alternatively for deposit orders, on the basis that the complaints had been presented out of time. The Claimant withdrew some complaints at the outset, which were dismissed upon withdrawal by a separate judgment dated 10 May 2024.
The Tribunal held that the trade union detriment complaints and right-to-be-accompanied complaints were out of time, that it had not been shown it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine them. It also held that the philosophical belief harassment and indirect discrimination complaints were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, considering the explanation for delay and the relative prejudice.
The strike-out and deposit-order applications concerning discrimination arising from disability and harassment related to disability against the First Respondent were dismissed. Those disability-related complaints were permitted to proceed, while all other remaining complaints were struck out and no complaints continued against the Second or Third Respondents.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaints of detriment on the grounds of trade union membership or activities under section 146 TULR(C)A 1992 were found to have been presented out of time and struck out. Some trade union detriment complaints against the Second and Third Respondents and a sick pay allegation against the First Respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaints concerning not permitting the Claimant to be accompanied and detriment for exercising the right to be accompanied under the Employment Relations Act 1999 were found to have been presented out of time and struck out. A section 12 ERA 1999 complaint against the Second Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to a philosophical belief under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was found to have been presented out of time and not within such other period as was just and equitable, and was struck out. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The complaint of indirect discrimination was found to have been presented out of time and not within such other period as was just and equitable, and was struck out. The judgment summary identifies the discrimination ground as belief. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37 of Schedule 1 to The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 39 of Schedule 1 to The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 146 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999
- section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 19 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.