Case 2207348/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Kuevidjen v Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207348/2021
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Kuevidjen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant advanced nine allegations: direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation, and a series of further race-related harassment allegations arising from the probation extension, an alleged insult, comments about meeting notes, an alleged false attendance allegation, a remark about Black Lives Matter, and a complaint to his manager. The tribunal made a Deposit Order requiring the claimant to pay £50 in respect of each allegation, totalling £450, as a condition of continuing to pursue them.
The Deposit Order was sent to the parties on 16 May 2022 and required payment within 21 days. The claimant did not pay any deposit. The tribunal therefore struck out all nine allegations under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records no substantive determination on the merits of the claims and no monetary award beyond the deposit order itself.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | One of the claimant's race discrimination allegations; struck out because no deposit was paid after the Deposit Order. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment rated to race; struck out because no deposit was paid after the Deposit Order. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegation; struck out because no deposit was paid after the Deposit Order. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment rated to race relating to the probation extension allegation; struck out because no deposit was paid after the Deposit Order. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment rated to race concerning the alleged use of the word 'wanker'; struck out because no deposit was paid after the Deposit Order. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment rated to race concerning meeting notes and being asked to redo them; struck out because no deposit was paid after the Deposit Order. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment rated to race concerning an alleged false allegation that the claimant did not attend work on 17 June 2020; struck out because no deposit was paid after the Deposit Order. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.