Case 2300806/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Miah v Binnies UK Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300806/2023
- Decision date
- 12 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Miah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent applied to strike out the Claimant's claim, or the parts involving allegations of discrimination by a colleague. At the preliminary hearing the application was clarified as seeking strike out of the first allegation, that the Claimant had been called "retarded" and "ignorant" by his colleague Hannah.
The Tribunal considered evidence about anonymous online communications and false accounts involving Hannah. The Claimant denied under oath that he had sent the communications or set up the accounts. The Tribunal found that Hannah's affidavit was persuasive but had not been tested by questions, and there was no medical evidence showing that she could not participate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal concluded that a fair trial remained possible at this stage, noting that the final hearing was not due until 6 to 9 August 2024 and that procedural steps could be taken for vulnerable witnesses. The Respondent's application to strike out part of the claim was therefore refused.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The Respondent's application to strike out part of the claim was refused at this stage; the merits of the disability discrimination claim were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The judgment records that the Claimant claims race discrimination, but the merits were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The judgment records that the Claimant claims sex discrimination, but the merits were not determined. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 53(1)(c)
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Bolch v Chipman
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson
- Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd and Ors
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- Gainford Care Homes Ltd v Tipple
- A v B
- Rule 41
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.