Case 2205687/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr N. Zulu (2) Mr H. Gue v Ministry of Defence — 2019
- Case reference
- 2205687/2018
- Decision date
- 13 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr N. Zulu (2) Mr H. Gue
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing about jurisdiction under s.121 Equality Act 2010 for complaints by two former members of 3 PARA. The Claimants brought complaints of harassment related to race, direct race discrimination and victimisation, relying on colour, nationality and/or national origins. The tribunal was not deciding the merits of those complaints or remedy.
The tribunal held that the service complaints did not have to plead every later tribunal allegation with the precision of a claim form. It found that, apart from specified exceptions, the tribunal complaints were sufficiently linked to the matters raised in the service complaints, namely an alleged environment of racial harassment and alleged failure to deal with race discrimination grievances. It also held that complaints ruled inadmissible in the service complaints process on substantive, rather than procedural, grounds could still proceed in the employment tribunal where directly effective EU law rights were engaged.
The tribunal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the First and Second Claimants' victimisation complaints, the First Claimant's complaint about an incident in 2009, and the First Claimant's complaint about lack of career progression. The career progression complaint was excluded because the related service complaint had been withdrawn. The remaining complaints were within the tribunal's jurisdiction, subject to time limit issues not determined at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Preliminary jurisdiction decision only. Subject to undetermined time limit issues, the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the race-related harassment complaints, including the Nazi flag complaints ruled inadmissible in the service complaints process, except the First Claimant's complaint about an incident in 2009, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary jurisdiction decision only. Subject to undetermined time limit issues, the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the direct race discrimination complaints, except the First Claimant's complaint about lack of career progression, which was dismissed because the related service complaint had been withdrawn. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that neither Claimant's victimisation complaint formed part of their service complaints and therefore the tribunal did not have jurisdiction under s.121 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.120 Equality Act 2010
- s.121 Equality Act 2010
- s.340A Armed Forces Act 2006
- Molaudi v Ministry of Defence
- principle of effectiveness
- principle of equivalence
- Article 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights
- Article 21 Charter of Fundamental Rights
- Articles 6, 8 and 14 ECHR
- R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor
- P v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza
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.