Case 1806770/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Quashie First v St Giles Trust Second Respondent: Patsy Joyce Heard: by Cloud Video Platform — 2025
- Case reference
- 1806770/2024
- Decision date
- 4 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Quashie First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents applied to strike out all discrimination allegations identified in the earlier case summary. The Tribunal applied Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and authorities on strike-out, including the need for caution in discrimination claims and claims brought by litigants in person.
Most allegations were not struck out because the Tribunal considered that they were fact-sensitive and required evidence at a final hearing. The dismissal allegation was not struck out against the First Respondent because the First Respondent admitted dismissing the claimant and evidence would be needed on why that decision was taken, but it was struck out against the Second Respondent because she appeared not to have been involved in the dismissal decision.
The allegation that the First Respondent leaked and distributed recordings of conversations was struck out against both respondents. The claimant told the Tribunal he did not know who leaked and distributed the recordings, and the Tribunal also noted that the allegation was out of time.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination allegations at paragraphs 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 were not struck out. The judgment text does not state the protected characteristic, but the gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The allegation that the respondents discriminated against the claimant by dismissing him was struck out against the Second Respondent but was not struck out against the First Respondent. The judgment text does not state the protected characteristic, but the gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments allegation at paragraph 7 was not struck out. The judgment refers to alleged PCPs, disadvantage, sickness absence, and feelings of isolation. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegations at paragraphs 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 were not struck out. The protected characteristic is not stated in the judgment text. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | The allegation at paragraph 8.1.2 that the First Respondent leaked and distributed recordings of conversations was struck out against both respondents as having no reasonable prospect of success. The protected characteristic is not stated in the judgment text. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 38 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd EAT 0098/16
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd EAT 0119/18
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson [2013] ICR 1108
- Cox v Adecco and ors [2021] ICR 1307
- Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor [2001] ICR 391
- Kwele-Siakam v Co-Operative Group Ltd EAT 0039/17
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.