Case 2301028/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Zoe Border v Premium Support Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301028/2021
- Decision date
- 13 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright Tribunal
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- J Forecast, M Foster-Norman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Zoe Border
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the start of the hearing, the respondent applied to strike out the discrimination claim, but that application was dismissed. The tribunal then dealt with the remaining claims on the basis of oral reasons given at the hearing; no written reasons were issued in the written record.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was struck out because, as the judgment records, it was not able to be pursued by virtue of Employment Judge Smith's deposit order dated 13 January 2023. The tribunal therefore did not determine that claim on its merits.
The claimant's race discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent had not discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race and recorded that the claim was not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the claim could not be pursued because of Employment Judge Smith's deposit order dated 13 January 2023 and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent had not discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race and dismissed the section 13 Equality Act 2010 claim as not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- deposit order
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.