Case 2204749/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person (with an Arabic interpreter) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204749/2020
- Decision date
- 25 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout Representations
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person (with an Arabic interpreter) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in London Central on 25 November 2021 before Employment Judge Stout, the respondent applied to strike out the claim. The judgment records that the claimant was represented in person with an Arabic interpreter and the respondent was represented by Christopher Jacobs of counsel.
The tribunal held that the whole of the claimant’s Equality Act 2010 claim for discrimination because of age, sex and sexual orientation, and for victimisation, had no reasonable prospect of success. It was therefore struck out under Rule 37(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The Equality Act 2010 age discrimination claim formed part of the whole claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Equality Act 2010 sex discrimination claim formed part of the whole claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The Equality Act 2010 sexual orientation discrimination claim formed part of the whole claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The Equality Act 2010 victimisation claim formed part of the whole claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a)
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.