Case 2202590/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Mbanacele v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202590/2018
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Mbanacele
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal dismissed the respondent's application for the claimant to be ordered to pay a deposit in the proceedings.
The tribunal also refused the respondent's application to dismiss claims presented outside the time limit. It directed that whether there had been a continuing act and/or whether it was just and equitable to extend time would be considered at the substantive hearing.
The claimant's sex discrimination claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. The claimant's discrimination claims under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 were also dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims of sex discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant's discrimination claims, insofar as they were pursuant to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 27 of the 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.