Case 2201293/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Deans v RBL Law Limited and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201293/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr N Deans
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this open preliminary hearing, the respondents applied to strike out the claimant's claims on the basis that they had not been actively pursued or that the conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable. The tribunal considered the delay in the claim, the procedural history, and the applicable strike-out principles.
The tribunal decided that the claimant's complaints should not be struck out. It also permitted specified amendments to the grounds of complaint, including additional background, further detail on factual allegations already pleaded, and additional detail relied on for direct race discrimination and/or harassment related to race.
The judgment made case management orders for a final hearing to consider liability and remedy. It did not decide whether any substantive claim succeeded and did not make a monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Open preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the respondents' strike-out application; liability and remedy were listed for a later final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Open preliminary hearing only. The claimant relied on being black; the tribunal refused strike-out and permitted some amendments, but did not determine liability. | Other | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim form included notice pay and other payments. The judgment did not determine liability or award any remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim form included whistleblowing. The judgment did not determine liability or award any remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | The claim form included victimisation. The judgment did not determine liability or award any remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records proposed particulars referring to harassment related to race. It did not determine liability or award any remedy. | Other | Race | — |
| Other | The claim form included failure to provide a safe place of work and later particulars concerning breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The judgment did not determine liability. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Birkett v James [1978] AC 297
- Evans v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1993] ICR 151
- Rolls Royce plc v Riddle [2008] IRLR 875
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.