Case 2202826/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2202826/2022
Decision date: 27 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Baty Appearances
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At this preliminary hearing the tribunal first cleared away a number of complaints that the claimant had included in a very long claim form but which were outside jurisdiction or not pursued. The claimant accepted that the tribunal could not hear the complaints of crime, theft, fraud, defamation, breach of the Data Protection Act 1988, breach of contract before dismissal and other similar matters, and those complaints were withdrawn and dismissed. She also confirmed that she was not bringing complaints of sex discrimination or religion or belief discrimination, so those were dismissed to the extent they had been pleaded.

The tribunal then considered the direct race discrimination complaints. It identified three allegations: an allegation that manager Salah Mohammed told the claimant's GP that she was Ukrainian; an allegation that Lin Chaun McMenamin described the claimant in a way that led people to follow her in cars; and an allegation that the claimant was treated differently on lateness and pay compared with a black manager and a black employee. The tribunal held the first two allegations were inherently implausible and had no reasonable prospect of success. It considered the third allegation less obviously implausible on its face, but found it was considerably out of time and that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing that it would be just and equitable to extend time. All three race discrimination allegations were therefore struck out.

The claimant also sought to add a whistleblowing complaint based on alleged disclosures about forged or 'faked' documents and an alleged detriment involving Rachel Jennings telling her to take her items and leave the store. The tribunal decided that an amendment was required because the claim form did not contain a pleaded whistleblowing complaint, and then refused the amendment under the Selkent balancing exercise. It took into account the low prospects of success, the difficulty in identifying the pleaded case, and the prejudice to the respondent if it had to meet a broader allegation involving multiple disclosures and witnesses. The tribunal also noted that the only complaints left after this hearing were the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claims about sick pay, which were listed for final hearing on 26 to 27 January 2023. No monetary award was made at this hearing.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's complaints of crime, theft, fraud, defamation, breach of the Data Protection Act 1988, breach of contract before dismissal and other matters set out in the claim form. After discussion, the claimant withdrew those complaints and they were dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Sex discrimination	The claimant confirmed that she was not bringing complaints of sex discrimination. To the extent such complaints had been pleaded, they were dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The claimant confirmed that she was not bringing complaints of discrimination because of religion or belief. To the extent such complaints had been pleaded, they were dismissed.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Race discrimination	The tribunal identified three direct race discrimination allegations: that a manager told the claimant's GP she was Ukrainian; that a colleague's conduct led to people following her in cars; and that the claimant was treated differently on lateness/pay compared with black colleagues. The first two were held inherently implausible and the third was not obviously implausible, but all three were out of time and there was no reasonable prospect of a just and equitable extension, so the race claim was struck out.	Struck out	Race	—
Whistleblowing	The claimant sought to add a detriment claim based on alleged protected disclosures about supposedly 'faked' documents and an alleged comment by Rachel Jennings. The tribunal held that an amendment was required but refused it under the Selkent exercise, finding the prospects low and the prejudice to the respondent significant.

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.