Case 2301939/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Blake-White v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301939/2021
- Decision date
- 12 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
- Panel members
- Ms Y Batchelor, Mr C Wilby
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Blake-White
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent applied to strike out the Claimant's complaints of indirect age discrimination and detriment arising from exercise of the statutory right to take adoption leave. The Claimant opposed strike-out and referred to train noise evidence, an iPhone recording, and audiogram testing of drivers.
The Tribunal found that the indirect age discrimination complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. It said there was now no prospect of taking evidence of the train noise levels complained about, the iPhone recording had no reasonable prospect of being sufficiently reliable, and the audiogram analysis proposed was disproportionate and highly unlikely to produce sufficiently reliable evidence of group disadvantage.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the adoption leave detriment complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and declined to strike out that complaint. The Claimant's remaining complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment struck out the complaint of indirect age discrimination on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- prima facie case of discrimination
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.