Case 2210418/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Forrest v Amazon Web Services EMEASARL UK Branch and 15 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2210418/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
17 namedClaimant
Mr C Forrest
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing to consider strike out and deposit order applications by both sides. The tribunal made no strike out judgment and no deposit orders on either the claimant's or the respondents' applications.
The tribunal did not strike out the respondents' responses. It found that the respondents had pleaded legal and factual defences to the protected disclosure detriment and victimisation claims, and that the claimant's allegations about documents and the conduct of the proceedings were intertwined with the merits and required evidence at a final hearing.
The tribunal also refused the respondents' applications to strike out or require deposits for claims against named solicitor and legal respondents, Mr Walters, and issue 2(v). It considered those matters premature before disclosure and witness evidence, and declined to require the claimant to limit his detriment table at that stage.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records complaints of protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of protected disclosure, but only determines strike out and deposit order applications. No substantive outcome on this claim was decided. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, but only determines strike out and deposit order applications. No substantive outcome on this claim was decided. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records disability discrimination complaints including failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, direct discrimination and indirect discrimination. It only determines strike out and deposit order applications, and no substantive outcome on these complaints was decided. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records a harassment complaint within the disability discrimination claims, but only determines strike out and deposit order applications. No substantive outcome on this claim was decided. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records a victimisation complaint and refers to issue 2(v) as an allegation of victimisation and protected disclosure detriment. The tribunal did not strike out issue 2(v) as concerning Ms Silver and made no deposit order; no substantive outcome on victimisation was decided. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- SI 2013/1237 Sch 1 r 37(1)
- Rule 39(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- Arrow Nominees v Blackledge
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- Timis v Osipov
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.
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.