Case 2201365/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Ikeda v Misuho Bank Ltd and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201365/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr T Ikeda
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on strike out and deposit orders. The claimant, a Japanese national employed by Mizuho Bank Ltd as a Lead Business Analyst from 4 May 2010 to 3 December 2019, pursued constructive unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and several direct race discrimination complaints. The tribunal applied rule 37(1)(a) and considered the race claims against the time limits in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, together with the rule 39 deposit-order test.
It struck out the age discrimination claim said to arise from headcount reduction, the race discrimination complaint that the bank had unilaterally terminated employment during sick leave, and the constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal accepted the respondents' case that the claimant resigned on 4 November 2019, that the resignation was accepted, and that his employment ended on 3 December 2019. It did not accept that the email of 4 November 2019 could be treated as only an unofficial resignation for the purposes of constructive dismissal.
The tribunal also struck out two historic race discrimination claims as out of time: the claim about a bonus for Inflation Linked Swap deals between July 2013 and June 2016, and the claim about increasing remuneration or changing job title to reflect quantitative analysis work taken on in April 2012. It found no continuing act on those pleadings and no explanation that justified extending time on a just and equitable basis.
Two further race discrimination claims were not struck out, but the tribunal held that they had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered deposits of £333 on each. Those claims concerned the failure to pay a bonus between June 2011 and June 2019 for writing computer programmes, and the failure to reflect the claimant's skills and contributions when reviewing remuneration. A separate race discrimination allegation that the bank should have offered a voluntary redundancy package also attracted a £333 deposit order; the tribunal said the pleaded case showed, at most, a possibility of discrimination.
No final merits award was made at this stage. The monetary figures in the judgment relate to deposit orders only, not to compensation or tribunal awards on the substantive claims.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) as age discrimination (headcount reduction); the tribunal accepted the respondents' submission that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a); the tribunal held that the claimant had resigned on 4 November 2019, his resignation was accepted, and the fact that he went on sick leave did not support a race discrimination claim about termination on 3 December 2019. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a); the tribunal rejected the argument that the 4 November 2019 email was only an unofficial resignation and found no reasonable prospect of constructive unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out as out of time under section 123 EqA 2010; the tribunal found no continuing act and no basis for a just and equitable extension of time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Not struck out, but the tribunal found the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a deposit of £333. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- rule 39(1)
- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(3) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(4) Equality Act 2010
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
- Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd
- Amies v Inner London Education Authority
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.