Case 1801939/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C McCrae v Mr P Johnson and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801939/2022
- Decision date
- 5 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss C McCrae
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a preliminary hearing on 1 July 2022, Employment Judge Wade ordered the Claimant to provide specific clarification of her complaints of discrimination because of religion or belief. The tribunal recorded that those complaints were unclear and gave a provisional view that they had poor prospects of success.
The Claimant did not provide the clarification ordered. By letter dated 16 August 2022, the tribunal gave her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the complaints should not be struck out for failure to comply with the case management orders. The Claimant did not respond.
On that basis, the tribunal decided that it was in the interests of justice and consistent with the overriding objective to strike out the complaints of discrimination because of religion or belief against the First Respondent. The judgment also states that the remaining complaint of unfair dismissal against the Second Respondent would proceed; no remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal struck out the complaints of discrimination because of religion or belief brought against the First Respondent after the Claimant failed to provide the clarification ordered at the preliminary hearing and did not respond to the later opportunity to make representations. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- overriding objective
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.