Case 2207391/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Trading 212 UK Ltd and others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207391/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Employment Judge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat alone by video on 16 to 18 October 2023 to deal with a preliminary hearing in claims by Ms S Savoia against Trading 212 UK Ltd and individual respondents. The judgment records that the wider litigation included disability, race and sex discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal allegations; it also records that a wrongful dismissal claim had been dismissed upon withdrawal. The claimant had worked as Group Compliance & Risk Manager from 14 September 2020 to 2 September 2022.
On disability, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved she was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the material period, which it treated as 27 March 2022 to 6 December 2022. It accepted that she had long-standing depression, anxiety and panic attacks, but found the medical evidence limited and incomplete, with no formal diagnosis of clinical depression, no evidence for much of the material period, and unclear evidence about medication and the extent of any effect on normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal found that the evidence pointed to symptoms linked to stressful or emotional events, rather than a substantial and long-term adverse effect meeting the statutory test.
On strike out, the tribunal rejected strike out and deposit orders for most allegations, but struck out the specific Schedule A items. Those included sex victimisation allegations against M Kazmi, Julia Layton, R2, R4 and Andrew Driver; direct race discrimination allegations against M Kazmi, Nicholas Dent and R4; and a direct sex discrimination allegation against Juliana Souza-Ennis. It also recorded withdrawals of several race discrimination allegations and one discrimination-arising-from-disability allegation against Philip Parsons. No deposit order and no monetary award were made, and the remaining allegations were left to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records that the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | All disability discrimination claims were dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had not proved disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Schedule A items 7, 12, 23, 24, 25 and 30 were struck out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Schedule A items 8, 18, 19 and 22 were withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Schedule A items 17, 20 and 21 were struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Schedule A item 9 was struck out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Equality Act 2010 s.6 disability definition
- Schedule 1 para 2(2) Equality Act 2010
- J v DLA Piper
- Rule 37 Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013
- Rule 39 Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Hawkins v Atex Group Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Hemdan v Ishmail
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.