Case 2201840/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. C. Wheeler v LSST Ltd. Hearing: Public Preliminary Hearing — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201840/2023
- Decision date
- 6 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. C. Wheeler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing on 3 November 2023 before Employment Judge Tinnion, heard by video from London Central ET. The Tribunal dealt only with the Respondent's strike-out applications under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal granted the Respondent's application in relation to the Claimant's indirect disability discrimination claim under s.19 Equality Act 2010, so that claim was struck out. It also dismissed the Respondent's application to strike out the Claimant's victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010, identified at para. 38(a) of the Case Management Order, meaning that claim was not struck out at this stage.
The written record notes that reasons for those decisions were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the note in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal granted the Respondent's Rule 37(1)(a) application and struck out the Claimant's indirect disability discrimination claim under s.19 Equality Act 2010 for no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's Rule 37(1)(a) application to strike out the victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 identified at para. 38(a) of the Case Management Order; the claim was not struck out. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a) (no reasonable prospect of success)
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.