Case 2201918/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201918/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Palca Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Case Management Summary of 13 November 2019 had already narrowed the case to one victimisation claim. At this hearing, the tribunal considered the claimant's further particulars of the protected acts relied on in support of the alleged detriments, which were said to have occurred in early April 2019.
The tribunal held that, apart from the May 2015 grievance alleging harassment against Mr Maddocks and one other, the protected acts relied on by the claimant post-dated the detriments and therefore could not have caused the treatment complained of. Those other grounds were struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal did not strike out the allegation based on the May 2015 grievance. It said evidence would be needed to consider the nature of that grievance, whether it fell within the definitions in section 27(2) of the Equality Act 2010, and whether the alleged detriments were because of that grievance. No remedy was decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal struck out the victimisation allegations insofar as they relied on protected acts that post-dated the early April 2019 detriments, including complaints made to Graham Dunkley by email. The allegation based on the May 2015 grievance was not struck out and remained to be determined. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.27(2) Equality Act 2010
- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.