Case 2200060/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Patel v Virgin Trains Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200060/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Patel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Camp sitting alone in Birmingham on 23 July 2019. The claimant, Mr I Patel, applied for a postponement, but that application was refused.
The claimant then said he wanted to withdraw his entire claim. The tribunal explained that if he did so, the claim would be dismissed and he would not be able to pursue it later if he changed his mind. It was also explained that the respondent might apply for costs if the claim was withdrawn, and the claimant confirmed that he understood and was sure he wanted to withdraw.
The judgment records that the whole claim was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52. The dismissed claim included a complaint of direct disability discrimination concerning the rejection of the claimant's October 2018 job application, and a victimisation complaint based on an alleged comment that he was not allowed to apply for any job vacancies with the respondent. The tribunal did not make substantive findings on the merits of those complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52; the judgment identifies this as a direct disability discrimination complaint relating to rejection of the claimant's October 2018 job application. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52; the judgment identifies this as a complaint about an alleged comment that the claimant was not allowed to apply for any job vacancies with the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52
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.