Case 2202045/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person, with support worker Ms. C. Jacobs For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202045/2019
- Decision date
- 15 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person, with support worker Ms. C. Jacobs For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's May 2019 claim revived allegations that the first respondent had an arrangement or understanding with IAI which prevented British students from joining IAI and taking its exams. The tribunal noted that similar race claims had been brought in 2013 and 2014, withdrawn in 2013 and 2016, and that the disability claims in the earlier four cases had already been dismissed by a reserved judgment sent on 15 November 2019.
For claims 1 to 5 and the section 145 rules request, the tribunal held that cause of action estoppel applied to the repeated race claims and that issue estoppel also applied because the earlier tribunal had already found there was no agreement, arrangement or understanding with IAI. It rejected the claimant's argument that the 22 July 2013 emails and Derek Cribb's 2019 correspondence with IAI amounted to fraud or fresh evidence which entirely changed the case, and it said it would not have reconsidered the earlier judgments if asked. The tribunal also rejected the submission that the earlier finding was merely a finding of fact rather than an estoppel on the issue.
The tribunal also held that claims 1 to 5 and the rules claim were out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. It found the matters were historic, said the claimant already had the key information long before 2019, and concluded that the later discovery of the emails did not justify delay until May 2019.
Claims 6 and 7 were victimisation complaints about the non-disclosure of the 22 July 2013 email chain and the 17 September 2013 letter. The tribunal accepted that these detriments raised a stronger time-point argument because the claimant said he first saw the missing emails in March 2019, but it held that the claims had poor prospects, found no reasonable prospect of proving that the non-disclosure was because of protected acts, and struck both claims out under rule 37. It therefore dismissed the remaining claims as res judicata.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination because of race (nationality), based on the allegation that British nationals had fewer opportunities to sit IAI exams than Indian nationals. Dismissed as barred by res judicata. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination because of disability, pleaded by comparison between a dyslexic British national and a non-dyslexic British national. Dismissed as barred by res judicata. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect discrimination because of nationality, based on the PCP that students of the first respondent could sit exams only twice a year. Dismissed as barred by res judicata. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination because of disability and nationality, relying on the same exam-frequency PCP and the alleged disadvantage to British students with dyslexia. Dismissed as barred by res judicata. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegation that the first respondent instructed, caused, induced or aided IAI not to admit British students, leading to less favourable treatment of them. Dismissed as barred by res judicata. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim against the individual respondents based on alleged detriments including non-disclosure of the 22 July 2013 email chain and the 17 September 2013 letter. Struck out under rule 37 for no reasonable prospect of success. |
Legal tests applied
13 references- res judicata
- cause of action estoppel
- issue estoppel
- Henderson v Henderson
- Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd
- Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc
- Thoday v Thoday
- Barber v Staffordshire County Council
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- rule 37 strike out
- Anyanwu v South Bank University
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
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.