Case 2219495/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Amooie v Goodman Masson Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2219495/2024
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Amooie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Jack on 8 November 2024. The claimant, Mr A Amooie, was represented by Miss Morgan and the respondent, Goodman Masson Ltd, was represented by Miss Sheerin. The judgment concerns case management applications only, not the merits of the underlying complaints.
The respondent applied under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) to strike out the complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal refused that application. As a result, both complaints were allowed to proceed.
The respondent also applied under Rule 39 for a deposit order in respect of the same complaints on the basis that they had little reasonable prospect of success. That application was also refused. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on liability or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | At a preliminary hearing, the respondent's application under Rule 37(1)(a) to strike out the direct race discrimination complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success was refused, so the complaint will proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | At a preliminary hearing, the respondent's application under Rule 37(1)(a) to strike out the harassment related to race complaint, and the separate Rule 39 application for a deposit order, were both refused. The complaint will therefore proceed. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 39
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.