Case 1806695/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Shubita v The University of Leeds Beckett (1806695/2022) 1 The University of Warwick (1303969/2023) 2 Dan Derricott 3 Rosie Drinkwater — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806695/2022
- Decision date
- 17 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 17 August 2023, Employment Judge JM Wade dealt with claim number 1303969/2023 by consent alongside the related Leeds proceedings. The claimant had applied for a fixed-term higher-grade post in May 2022, was told on 23 June 2022 that he had not been shortlisted, and later brought proceedings after ACAS conciliation and a certificate dated 13 April 2023. Leeds had approached Warwick in early August 2022 to assess the application, and Mr Derricott confirmed that he would not shortlist the claimant for interview.
The judge explained that he had to assess whether any pleaded contentions had reasonable prospects of success. He held that there was no Employment Rights Act claim against Warwick, Ms Drinkwater or Mr Derricott because the claimant was not a worker or employee of Warwick. He also noted that, although the respondents might have been acting as agents for Leeds and could potentially engage the Equality Act, the claimant did not explain how their conduct amounted to race discrimination or identify a clear basis for the complaint.
In those circumstances the judge found that claim number 1303969/2023 had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out. He declined to allow further time for clarification or to make a deposit order, saying that would not be in the interests of justice and would distract from the separate Leeds claim, which remained listed for a final hearing later in 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judge held there was no Employment Rights Act claim against Warwick, Ms Drinkwater or Mr Derricott because the claimant was not a worker or employee of Warwick. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judge said the respondents may have been acting as agents for Leeds and could potentially engage the Equality Act, but the claimant could not explain how their conduct amounted to race discrimination or identify a viable basis for the allegation. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 26 prospects of success
- Rule 37 strike out
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.