Case 2201186/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Julie Bann - Solicitor — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201186/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge A M Buchanan on 16 May 2023. The claimant, Mr Jamie Smith, appeared in person and the respondent, London Borough of Camden, was represented by Ms Julie Bann. The tribunal considered the unfair dismissal complaint under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the dismissal.
The tribunal held that those two complaints had only little reasonable prospect of success and said that separate deposit orders would be issued. The judgment does not finally determine either of those complaints on the merits.
The tribunal also struck out all other complaints advanced in the proceedings, whether under the Equality Act 2010 or otherwise, under Rule 37(1)(a) of the 2013 Rules, on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. Case management orders for the two complaints that were not struck out were to be issued separately.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At the public preliminary hearing on 16 May 2023, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint under sections 94/98 ERA 1996 had only little reasonable prospect of success. A separate deposit order was issued; there was no final merits determination in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | At the public preliminary hearing on 16 May 2023, the tribunal held that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, so far as it related to the dismissal, had only little reasonable prospect of success. A separate deposit order was issued; there was no final merits determination in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- sections 94/98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 39 of Schedule I to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule I to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.