Case 2207832/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Limage v The Oil and Pipelines Agency and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207832/2022
- Decision date
- 23 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr B Limage
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment states that all complaints under sections 13, 15, 20, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act were struck out where the cause of action arose before 19 October 2021, while the rest of the claimant’s complaints were said to be continuing at that point. No merits findings are set out in the page provided beyond that procedural disposition.
The reasons record that the claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £5,000 following a preliminary hearing held on 22 March 2023, and that the order was sent to him on the same day. The claimant did not pay the deposit.
On that basis, Employment Judge E Burns Date struck out the complaints described above under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Sections 13, 15 and 20 EqA 2010 complaints formed part of the complaints struck out; the reasons record a £5,000 deposit order and non-payment leading to strike-out under rule 39(4). | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Section 26 EqA 2010 complaint; struck out under rule 39(4) after the £5,000 deposit was not paid. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Section 27 EqA 2010 complaint; struck out under rule 39(4) after the £5,000 deposit was not paid. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.