Case 2200468/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms v Singhakowitna Petroineos Trading Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200468/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of sex discrimination, race discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment. The preliminary hearing concerned the respondent's applications to strike out part of the claim, or alternatively for deposit orders, principally by reference to limitation arguments about whether earlier allegations could form part of conduct extending over a period or whether time might be extended on just and equitable grounds.
The tribunal refused the strike-out application. It held that there was no proper basis at this preliminary stage for finding that any part of the claimant's case had no reasonable prospect of success, and it made no factual findings on the underlying allegations.
The tribunal also dismissed the deposit order application. It found that the respondent had not shown that the claimant had little reasonable prospect of success on the relevant limitation arguments. The claimant's separate amendment application was left to be considered at a further case management hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The respondent's applications to strike out part of the claim and for a deposit order were refused; the sex discrimination claim was not finally determined. | Other | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The respondent's applications to strike out part of the claim and for a deposit order were refused; the race discrimination claim was not finally determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary judgment only. The respondent's applications to strike out part of the claim and for a deposit order were refused; the victimisation claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary judgment only. The respondent's applications to strike out part of the claim and for a deposit order were refused; the whistleblowing detriment claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
- conduct extending over a period
- just and equitable extension
- s123(3)(a)
- s123(1)(b)
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.