Case 2300485/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E. Kemp of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2017
- Case reference
- 2300485/2017
- Decision date
- 7 August 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Appearances
- Venue
- London South Croydon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr E. Kemp of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a claim form presented on 7 February 2017, Ms Sooroojbally brought complaints of direct discrimination on the grounds of sex and race, indirect sex discrimination, harassment related to race and sex, and victimisation. She later withdrew all claims apart from victimisation by letter dated 20 June 2017. The tribunal also recorded that a subsequent claim was presented on 24 May 2017 adding further matters from December 2016 onwards.
At the preliminary hearing on 7 August 2017, Employment Judge Sage held that the claimant’s victimisation claims were presented in time. The respondent’s application for a deposit order was refused. The claimant’s application for a costs order against the respondent, based on alleged unreasonable conduct of the proceedings, was also refused.
The judgment was a case management decision rather than a merits determination. The tribunal noted that the claimant’s application to amend the first ET1 was otiose because it had been superseded by acceptance of the second claim form, and it gave directions for amended pleadings, disclosure, a schedule of loss, witness statements, and a 10-day hearing listed for 1 to 12 October 2018 in Croydon. No financial remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal held that the victimisation claims were presented in time. No liability decision on the merits was made at this stage. | Other | — | — |
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.