Case 1804268/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Aly, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 1804268/2023
Decision date: 13 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge James Representation

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms S Aly, counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge James, sitting at Sheffield by video on 13 May 2024, determined a preliminary hearing on the respondents' applications under rule 37 (strike out) and rule 39 (deposit orders) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, in proceedings brought by Ms V Brown against Nevro Medical Limited and three individual respondents (Mr B Fear, Ms S Halliwell and Ms C Holt).

Applying the principles in Anyanwu, Ezsias, Ahir, Cox v Adecco and Malik (among others), and the approach to deposit orders in Jansen van Rensberg, the Judge concluded that seven specific allegations (5.1.3, 5.1.11, 5.43, 5.44, 5.45, 5.53, 36.1) had no reasonable prospect of success and were struck out. A further seventeen allegations (5.1.8, 5.1.9, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.21, 5.28, 5.29, 5.31, 5.33, 5.34, 5.48, 5.52, 5.55, 5.58, 5.59, 5.60) were found to have little reasonable prospect of success and made subject to deposit orders of £500 each.

The Judge declined to strike out the remaining allegations, including those raising time-limit arguments under the Equality Act, given the wide tribunal discretion. The substantive claims (including sex and disability discrimination, sexual harassment, reasonable adjustments and whistleblowing) continue. PDF text was truncated from 75,951 to 15,000 chars, so the summary may be incomplete.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Preliminary hearing judgment under r.37/r.39 ETR 2013: seven specific allegations struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success; seventeen further allegations subject to deposit orders of £500 each (little reasonable prospect). The substantive sex discrimination, sexual harassment, disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims continue. PDF truncated from 75,951 to 15,000 chars.	Other	Sex	—
Disability discrimination	Disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims continue subject to strike-out / deposit orders on listed allegations. No final liability determination.	Other	Disability	—
Harassment	Sexual harassment allegations continue subject to strike-out / deposit orders. No final liability determination.	Other	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

17 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.