Case 2217704/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Matthew Ivey v Tata Communications (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217704/2023
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- by CVP from the Central London Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Matthew Ivey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's applications for strike-out and deposit orders. The tribunal heard no evidence and made no findings of fact. It recorded claims including direct race discrimination, disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal by reason of whistleblowing, and ordinary unfair dismissal.
The tribunal refused to strike out, or order deposits for, the alleged protected disclosure issue, the grievance rejection complaints, and the grievance appeal extension complaints. It considered those matters should be decided after evidence at a final merits hearing, although it noted some appeared not to have good prospects on the papers.
The tribunal struck out the victimisation and whistleblowing detriment complaints based on Detriment 5. It concluded that, taking the DSAR complaint at its highest, the claimant pointed to ordinary circumstances and made only a bare assertion that those events were because of a protected disclosure or protected act.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was listed as a claim. The strike-out/deposit application concerning the grievance appeal extension complaint was refused; there was no final merits determination. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was listed as a claim. The strike-out/deposit application concerning the grievance appeal extension complaint was refused; there was no final merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was listed as a claim. The strike-out/deposit application concerning the grievance appeal extension complaint was refused; there was no final merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint based on Detriment 5, the DSAR made on 28 July 2023 not being replied to completely until 7 November 2023, was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). Other victimisation complaints considered in the judgment were not struck out or made subject to a deposit order. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment complaint based on Detriment 5, the DSAR made on 28 July 2023 not being replied to completely until 7 November 2023, was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). The tribunal refused strike-out or deposit orders on the alleged protected disclosure issue and on other whistleblowing detriment complaints considered in the judgment. The judgment also notes that some whistleblowing complaints had been dismissed on withdrawal, but does not identify them in the extracted text. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- Section 43B ERA 1996 protected disclosure
- Mechkarov strike-out approach
- Madarassy v Nomura burden of proof
- Igen v Wong burden of proof
- Meek v City of Birmingham District Council reasons requirement
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.