Case 2219743/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219743/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O Segal KC
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal added Clyde UK Services Company and Clyde & Co Europe LLP as respondents, deeming the claim to have been filed and served on those two entities. It dismissed the claims against the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth Respondents.
The tribunal struck out claims of harassment, direct discrimination and victimisation based on the content of emails sent to the Claimant by Ms Kenwright and Ms Kirrane, as identified in specified paragraphs of the Details of Claim, under rule 38(1)(a). It also struck out allegations referring to the ACAS conciliation process because they were based on matters subject to legal privilege.
The unlawful means conspiracy claim was dismissed by consent. The tribunal recorded that Equality Act claims under sections 111 and 112 continued against the remaining respondents, and that it had territorial jurisdiction to determine the remaining claims as confirmed by the EAT order dated 17 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claims of harassment based on the content of emails sent by Ms Kenwright and Ms Kirrane, as made in specified paragraphs of the Details of Claim, were struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a). The judgment listing categories identify race discrimination and victimisation, but the short judgment text does not separately state the protected characteristic for each struck-out allegation. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Claims of direct discrimination based on the content of emails sent by Ms Kenwright and Ms Kirrane, as made in specified paragraphs of the Details of Claim, were struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a). The judgment listing categories identify race discrimination, but the short judgment text does not set out the substance of the allegations. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Claims of victimisation based on the content of emails sent by Ms Kenwright and Ms Kirrane, as made in specified paragraphs of the Details of Claim, were struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claim for unlawful means conspiracy was dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38(1)(a)
- legal privilege
- ss. 111, 112 Eq Act
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.