Case 1807682/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Falchikov v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 1807682/2023
- Decision date
- 2 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Falchikov
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 24 April 2024 before Employment Judge Maidment, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel, the tribunal dealt with complaint management rather than the merits of the substantive dispute. It recorded that the claimant's complaints of discrimination based on a protected philosophical belief, concerning alleged delay and refusal to fully address a subject access request of 21 May, delay in responding to a complaint, the complaint being treated as closed after ACAS early conciliation was initiated, and the respondent's alleged failure to honestly engage in early conciliation, were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of them.
The order also noted that the sole complaint still proceeding was the discrimination complaint about not being shortlisted for interview for the role of Opposition Group Support Officer. No merits finding or remedy was made in this judgment in relation to that remaining complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal recorded these complaints as based on a protected philosophical belief and concerning alleged delay/refusal to fully address a subject access request of 21 May, delay in responding to the follow-up complaint, the complaint being treated as closed after ACAS early conciliation was initiated, and the respondent's alleged failure to honestly engage in early conciliation. They were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
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.