Case 2300908/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Gilpin v Dorking Christian Centre — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300908/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Gilpin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sent a no-hearing judgment striking out all of Mr Z Gilpin's claims against Dorking Christian Centre. The respondent's grounds of resistance said that Mr Gilpin was not, and had never been, an employee of the respondent, and that his claims for race discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other unidentified payments were without foundation.
Earlier, Employment Judge Martin wrote to Mr Gilpin on 23 May 2023 saying the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospects of success and inviting any objection by 30 May 2023. Mr Gilpin replied on 23 May 2023, but nothing in that response related to the employment tribunal claims.
The response was not copied to the respondent until November 2023. The respondent then confirmed that strike out was appropriate in all the circumstances, and the tribunal recorded that all of the claimant's claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The reasons refer to a claim that the claimant had been discriminated against on the grounds of race. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Covers the notice pay claim referred to in the reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The reasons refer to a holiday pay claim; the extracted text does not specify any separate statutory basis. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Covers the arrears of pay and other unidentified payments referred to in the reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.