Case 1804268/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Aly, counsel For the v Ms C Musgrave-Cohen, counsel, for R1, R3 and R4 Mr M Sellwood, counsel for R2 — 2024

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

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms S Aly, counsel For the

Respondent

Ms C Musgrave-Cohen, counsel, for R1, R3 and R4 Mr M Sellwood, counsel for R2

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 claims adjudicated

Claim type	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Other	Sex	—
Disability discrimination	Other	Disability	—
Harassment	Other	Sex	—

Source tags (gov.uk)

Disability Discrimination
Public Interest Disclosure and Sex Discrimination

Legal tests applied

17 references

Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694, EAT
Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd UKEAT/0098/16
Malik v Birmingham City Council UKEAT/0027/19/BA
Cox v Adecco UKEAT/0339/19/AT
Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union [2001] 1 WLR 391
Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126
Ahir v British Airways plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust [2019] ICR 1, CA
Jansen van Rensberg v Royal London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames UKEAT/0096/07
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11
Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724
Grant v Land Registry [2011] IRLR 748
Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] IRLR 884
s.13 Equality Act 2010
s.26 Equality Act 2010

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available 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.