Case 2206695/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2206695/2018
- Decision date
- 6 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Glennie on 10 February 2020. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents were represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded that the complaints of unlawful deduction from wages and age discrimination were dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal also struck out the complaint described as automatic unfair dismissal and the race discrimination complaint because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not set out substantive findings on the merits of those claims beyond that strike-out decision.
The claimant's application to join Sethia London Limited as a respondent was refused; alternatively, the tribunal struck out the claim against that company on the same no reasonable prospect of success basis. The hearing listed to commence on 6 July 2020 was vacated, and the claimant was directed to provide written representations on the respondents' costs application.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment described this as a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal and struck it out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.