Case 2203461/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203461/2021
- Decision date
- 18 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 14 July 2022 before Employment Judge Spencer at London Central, the Tribunal dealt with Mrs S Matthews' claims against Unite the Union. The claim that there had been a breach of her right not to be unjustifiably disciplined under section 64 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Claimant's disability discrimination claim was also struck out for failure to comply with Tribunal orders and/or failure to actively pursue her case. The race discrimination claim was not determined on its merits at this stage and was allowed to proceed to a full hearing, with a case management order enclosed with the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success under section 64 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out for failure to comply with Tribunal orders and/or failure to actively pursue the case. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Allowed to proceed to a full hearing; no merits decision was made in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- failure to comply with Tribunal orders and/or failure to actively pursue her case
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.