Case 2301550/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Roberts v RELX Group plc and others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301550/2023
- Decision date
- 8 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing judgment and deposit order, not a final determination of liability. The respondents applied to strike out all allegations, or alternatively for deposit orders. The tribunal applied the strike-out and deposit-order tests and considered the claimant's discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment allegations by reference to the numbered list of issues.
The tribunal declined to strike out many allegations because they involved disputed facts, questions of credibility, agency issues within the RELX group, or matters which would require a mini-trial on documents without hearing oral evidence. It also declined to determine at this stage whether RELX Group Plc, or individuals employed by other RELX entities, could be liable as employer or agent in relation to many allegations.
The tribunal struck out allegations or parts of allegations where it found no reasonable prospect of success, including issue 9, parts of issues 17, 18, 26, 28, 38, 45, 46, 48, 52 and 54, and all of issue 44. It made deposit orders where it found allegations had little reasonable prospect of success, including issues 5a, 6a, 7, 8, 26, 45, 49, 50, 51 and 52. The claimant was ordered to pay deposits of £60 for each of 77 specified allegations or arguments if he wished to continue advancing them.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal struck out some race discrimination allegations or parts of allegations, made deposit orders for others as having little reasonable prospect of success, and made no order on many other race discrimination allegations which therefore continued. | Other | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. Some age discrimination allegations against specific respondents were struck out and some were made subject to deposit orders; other allegations were not struck out or made subject to deposit at this hearing. | Other | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The judgment refers to direct discrimination because of gender, treated here as sex. Some allegations against specific respondents were struck out and some were made subject to deposit orders; other allegations continued. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary judgment only. Several victimisation allegations against named individuals were struck out, several were made subject to deposit orders, and others were not subject to any order at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal addressed whistleblowing detriment allegations together with victimisation allegations. Some allegations against named individuals were struck out, some were made subject to deposit orders, and others were not subject to any order at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- ABN Amro Management Services Ltd v Hogben
- Ahir v BA Plc
- rule 39(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- little reasonable prospect of success
- Van Rensburg v Kingston upon Thames
- A H v Ishmail
- Kemeh v Ministry of Defence
- X v Y
- Quereshi v Victoria University at Manchester
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
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.
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.