Case 1802190/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Edwards v HM Revenue and Customs and 4 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1802190/2018
- Decision date
- 28 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Ms A Edwards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe underlying proceedings included direct race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal claims against HM Revenue & Customs and individual respondents. The case was compromised through ACAS on terms under which the claimant withdrew all claims against all respondents. The tribunal did not decide the merits of those underlying claims.
The second respondent applied for a preparation time order, arguing among other things that the claimant had acted vexatiously, disruptively or unreasonably and that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal rejected those arguments, finding that it was not appropriate to make concluded findings on the incident, that the harassment allegation could not be treated as having no reasonable prospect of success, and that the claimant's other procedural conduct did not meet the threshold alleged.
The tribunal found unreasonable conduct only in the claimant's failure to notify the second respondent promptly that the case had settled and that the claims were withdrawn. It found he should have been notified by 6.00pm on 6 February 2019 and that he then spent four further hours preparing. A preparation time order of £152 was made, calculated as four hours at £38 per hour.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was identified at a preliminary hearing as one of the underlying claims. The case was compromised through ACAS and withdrawn; there was no merits determination in this judgment. | Settled | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment was identified as one of the underlying claims, including an allegation concerning an inflatable monkey brought into the workplace. The claim was compromised through ACAS and withdrawn; there was no merits determination in this judgment. | Settled | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was identified at a preliminary hearing as one of the underlying claims. The case was compromised through ACAS and withdrawn; there was no merits determination in this judgment. | Settled | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal was identified at a preliminary hearing as one of the underlying claims. The case was compromised through ACAS and withdrawn; there was no merits determination in this judgment. | Settled | — | — |
| Other | The judgment determined the second respondent's application for a preparation time order. The tribunal upheld it only in respect of the claimant's failure to notify the second respondent in good time of the late settlement and withdrawal. | Upheld | — | £152 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £152
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 76 Employment Tribunals Rules
- rule 84 Employment Tribunals Rules
- overriding objective
- McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) [2004] ICR 1398
- Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420
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.