Case 2204797/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Matovu in person For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2204797/2019
Decision date: 25 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Adkin Representations
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr Matovu in person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At an open preliminary hearing on 14 September 2020, Employment Judge Adkin dealt with applications in the Claimant's 7 November 2019 race victimisation and harassment claim against 2 Temple Gardens Chambers and 19 others. The Claimant's application to prevent Farrar & Co LLP acting for the Respondents was dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to bar the Respondents from instructing their chosen solicitors; the judge said any challenge would have to be pursued in the High Court or through the existing appeal process. The Claimant's application to strike out paragraph 48 of the Grounds of Resistance was also dismissed, the judge saying the Chagger/Polkey point and the Respondents' reliance on alleged arrears of over £26,000 were matters for evidence and submissions at the final hearing.

The Respondents' strike-out application succeeded in relation to issue 2.1 of the list of issues, namely the allegation that they investigated Mr Tyler's grievance while declining to investigate the Claimant's grievances. The tribunal held that this was the same factual issue as issue 18.8 in the earlier proceedings, which had already been determined by the Snelson Tribunal, so the Claimant was estopped from pursuing it. The judge added that, if estoppel did not apply, litigating the same point again while the appeal against the earlier decision was ongoing would be an abuse of process.

The Claimant's application for a stay pending the outcome of his appeals was refused, but the hearing listed for 3 November 2020 was postponed. Applying rule 2 and taking account of delay, expense and fading memories, the tribunal considered an indefinite stay inappropriate, but concluded that postponement, rather than a stay, best served the interests of justice because there was some risk that parts of the earlier decision might be overturned on appeal. Preparation of the case was directed to continue, with the matter to be reviewed again at a case management hearing in February 2021.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Victimisation	The tribunal struck out issue 2.1, which alleged that the Respondents proceeded to investigate Mr Tyler's grievance while declining to investigate the Claimant's grievances. It held that this was the same factual issue as issue 18.8 in the earlier proceedings and that the Claimant was estopped from pursuing it; it also said the same point would amount to abuse of process if litigated again while the appeal against the earlier decision remained ongoing.	Struck out	Race	—

Legal tests applied

11 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.

Open official judgment 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.