Case 2203773/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ghosh v Judicial Appointments Commission and 5 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203773/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns Representation
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Mr A Ghosh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Mr A Ghosh's race discrimination case arising from the Judicial Appointments Commission's recruitment exercise for deputy High Court judges. The tribunal noted that it had heard no evidence on the merits, apart from material relevant to confidentiality and disclosure, and therefore made no general findings of fact beyond undisputed background matters. It recorded that the claimant had been assessed by the sift panel made up of R4 and R5, given Grade C overall, and did not progress to the next stage.
On disclosure, the tribunal held that an employment tribunal is a court for the purposes of section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 in this context, so it could authorise disclosure of confidential candidate material under section 139(4)(e). It ordered disclosure of the relevant candidate material subject to redaction and confidentiality safeguards, including private hearing provisions and a closed bundle for the material covered by the order.
The claimant withdrew the complaints against R2, R3, R5 and R6, including the original sections 110 to 112 Equality Act complaints to the extent they were pleaded, and those complaints were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal held that the claim form already encompassed a case that R4 could be personally liable as an agent of R1 under section 110, so no amendment was required, although it said it would have allowed the amendment in any event.
The strike-out application against R4 failed. For the direct race discrimination complaint, the tribunal said the section 51 point was not obviously bound to fail and that a wider reading of section 51(1)(c) could capture discriminatory conduct by someone involved in the selection process. For the indirect discrimination complaint, it refused strike out and declined a deposit order, saying the challenge to the PCPs and the statistical arguments required evidence. The complaints against R4 were therefore left to proceed to the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The claimant withdrew the equivalent complaints against R2, R3, R5 and R6, and those matters were dismissed on withdrawal. As to the remaining race discrimination complaints, the tribunal refused to strike out the complaints against R4 and held that the original claim form was sufficient to encompass personal liability via section 110 EA 2010. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination complaint under section 19 EA 2010. The tribunal declined to strike it out or make a deposit order, said the section 110 agency point could continue, and left the issue of how the PCPs were applied to be decided on evidence at the final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Watson v Hemingway Design Ltd contextual approach
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore amendment factors
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership balancing injustice and hardship
- rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Anyanwu/Ezsias caution on strike-out of discrimination claims
- rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- Hemdan v Ishmail deposit order purpose
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.