Case 2219384/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Tandi v Bank of China (UK) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219384/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Tandi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied under rule 37 to strike out all complaints except victimisation. Employment Judge Keogh heard the application on 6 January 2025 and struck out five complaints as having no reasonable prospects of success: automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996, direct sex discrimination, direct associative disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, and harassment related to sex. Oral reasons were given at the hearing and summarised in the case management orders.
The judgment records that the following claims would remain and proceed to final hearing: direct race discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation. No remedy was determined in this decision. The judgment was sent to the parties on 20 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct associative disability discrimination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.