Case 2301411/2018 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301411/2018
- Decision date
- 13 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this closed preliminary hearing, the tribunal dealt with the respondents' strike-out and deposit-order application and the claimant's complaint about behaviour. The claimant confirmed that she had no current complaints about the respondents' behaviour. The tribunal did not accept the respondents' submission that all claims should be struck out because of alleged fraud in gaining employment, and it proceeded on the ET1 and the allegation table as the basis for case management.
The tribunal struck out all sex discrimination, age discrimination, disability discrimination and harassment claims as having no reasonable prospect of success. On disability, it noted the earlier case management hearing on 14 August 2018, the lack of information provided by the claimant, the absence of any pleaded reasonable-adjustments complaint, and the claimant's acceptance at the hearing that the disability claims could not continue; the tribunal also concluded that she would be unable to establish that she was disabled. The tribunal also struck out a number of narrative or non-specific allegations, including allegations 10, 26, 30, 42 and 45.
Race discrimination and race victimisation survived only in part. The tribunal held that some allegations were too general or did not affect the claimant and struck out allegations 2, 4, 13 and 38, together with parts of allegation 48, but allowed a number of specific race allegations to proceed to the final hearing, including allegations concerning treatment in meetings, comments, workload, leave, promotion, access to desk and computer, and post-grievance conduct. It used race victimisation as shorthand for a detriment because the claimant had done, intended to do, or was suspected of doing or intending to do a protected act, and it restricted that claim to race. No deposit order was made because the remaining claims turned on evidence not yet heard and, in light of the claimant's financial circumstances, a deposit would in effect have prevented those claims going forward.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | All sex discrimination allegations were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | All age discrimination allegations were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | All disability discrimination allegations were struck out. The tribunal concluded the claimant would be unable to establish that she was disabled and noted there was no pleaded reasonable-adjustments case. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegations 25, 39 and 48 were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Race victimisation allegations were allowed to proceed, but several other victimisation allegations were struck out. The tribunal used race victimisation as shorthand for detriment because of a protected act, restricted to race. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Partial strike-out at the preliminary hearing. Allegations 2, 4, 13, 38 and the non-specific parts of 48 were struck out, but other race allegations were allowed to proceed to the final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- White v University of Manchester fair notice
- Rule 37(1)(a) strike out
- Hack v St Christopher's Fellowship
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College no reasonable prospect
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage test
- Romanowska v Aspirations Care Limited
- Tayside Public Transport v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank N A approach
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Hemdan v Ishmail deposit orders
- Hassan v Tesco Stores two-stage approach
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.