Case 2208195/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 2208195/2023
Decision date: 9 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge E Burns

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out the claims or, alternatively, to require deposits. The claimant, a black man employed as a Patient Care Coordinator from 19 November 2018, had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 19 January 2023. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and direct race and sex discrimination.

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37. It recorded that dismissal for misconduct was a potentially fair reason, that the claimant had been convicted of assault by beating, and that he could not identify any new fact or evidence that might lead a disciplinary or appeal panel to disbelieve the conviction. The tribunal said the chances of establishing that the respondent did not genuinely believe on reasonable grounds that he was guilty were vanishingly small, and it held that any unfairness in the disciplinary hearing being held in his absence would have been cured on appeal.

On the discrimination allegations, the tribunal treated the case as a series of pleaded detriments said to be because of race and sex. It struck out allegations 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8(first half), 3.10 and 3.25 as having no reasonable prospect of success because they depended on the claimant's case that the criminal findings and the respondent's evidence were false. It refused to strike out allegations 3.19, 3.20, 3.21 and 3.24, but found they had little reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal ordered deposits for allegations 3.8(second half), 3.11 to 3.15, 3.17 and 3.23, and a further £200 deposit for allegations 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5. It left allegations 3.9, 3.16, 3.18 and 3.22 to proceed. The reasons say there was a separate deposit order, but the extracted text does not state the amount of that first deposit order.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal relied on the claimant's conviction for assault by beating, found he could not identify any new facts or evidence that would undermine the disciplinary decision, and held there was no obvious miscarriage of justice. It also said any procedural unfairness in holding the disciplinary hearing in his absence would have been cured on appeal.	Struck out	—	—
Race discrimination	Direct race discrimination claim pleaded by reference to 25 detriments. The tribunal struck out allegations 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8(first half), 3.10 and 3.25 as having no reasonable prospect of success. It declined to strike out allegations 3.19, 3.20, 3.21 and 3.24, but found they had little reasonable prospect of success; it ordered a deposit for 3.8(second half), 3.11 to 3.15, 3.17 and 3.23, and a further £200 deposit for 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5. Allegations 3.9, 3.16, 3.18 and 3.22 were left to proceed. The reasons refer to a separate deposit order, but the amount of that first deposit is not stated in the extracted text.	Other	Race	—
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination claim pleaded by reference to the same 25 detriments. The tribunal struck out allegations 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8(first half), 3.10 and 3.25 as having no reasonable prospect of success. It declined to strike out allegations 3.19, 3.20, 3.21 and 3.24, but found they had little reasonable prospect of success; it ordered a deposit for 3.8(second half), 3.11 to 3.15, 3.17 and 3.23, and a further £200 deposit for 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5. Allegations 3.9, 3.16, 3.18 and 3.22 were left to proceed. The reasons refer to a separate deposit order, but the amount of that first deposit is not stated in the extracted text.	Other	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.