Case 2302072/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2302072/2018
- Decision date
- 21 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Nash
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South on 5 December 2018, Employment Judge J Nash sitting alone gave a short judgment dated 21 December 2018. The claimant's sexual orientation discrimination complaint and disability discrimination complaint were struck out because each had no reasonable prospect of success. The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
The record does not give detailed reasons for the strike-out decisions beyond the stated ground, and it does not record any monetary award. The written note also says that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
The judgment further records that the race discrimination complaint proceeds, so that claim was not finally determined by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record does not set out any further substantive findings on this complaint. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record does not set out any further substantive findings on this complaint. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the race discrimination complaint proceeds; this judgment did not determine that claim. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect 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.