Case 1803766/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr M Simpson (director and owner of the Respondent) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803766/2021
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge Davies recorded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had not worked for the respondent for two years and was not saying that there had been an automatically unfair reason for dismissal.
The tribunal also struck out the race discrimination complaint under rule 37. The reason given was that the treatment complained of did not relate to race as defined in the Equality Act 2010, but to where the claimant lived. The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had not worked for the respondent for two years and was not alleging an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success because the treatment complained of did not relate to race as defined in the Equality Act 2010; it related to where the claimant lived. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 of the 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.