Case 2302087/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Benhalla v Interserve FS (UK) Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 2302087/2016
- Decision date
- 7 July 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer Representation
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Benhalla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Freer, the tribunal dealt with amendments, time limits, strike-out applications and a deposit order application in Mr N Benhalla's claims against Interserve FS (UK) Ltd. The claimant's application to rely on additional medical material about a second alleged disability, a left knee injury, was refused. The disability case was limited to Ankylosing Spondylitis, which the respondent had accepted was a disability at the material times.
On the race claims, the claimant's application to amend his particulars by adding paragraphs from a 'further information' document used in an earlier tribunal case was refused for the direct race discrimination and race harassment heads. The respondent's strike-out applications, including the argument that the race claims were out of time, were refused, but a deposit order was granted; the amount is not recorded in the extracted reasons.
The tribunal also refused the respondent's strike-out or deposit order applications in relation to the disability discrimination claims, including direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments, and said time jurisdiction would remain an issue for the full hearing. The claimant confirmed that the victimisation claim did not rely on his grievance as an alleged protected act, and the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At the preliminary hearing, the claimant's application to rely on additional medical material about a second alleged disability, a left knee injury, was refused. The disability case was limited to Ankylosing Spondylitis, which the respondent had accepted was a disability at the material times. The respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications on limitation were refused, and time jurisdiction was left to the full hearing. The pleaded disability heads included direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal also treated disability harassment as part of the disability claims and refused the respondent's strike-out or deposit order applications in respect of those disability discrimination claims. No merits finding was made at this stage. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's application to amend his particulars to add material from a previous 'further information' document was refused in relation to the direct race discrimination claim. The respondent's strike-out application on the basis of time limits was refused, and a deposit order was granted; the amount is not set out in the extracted reasons. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The race harassment claim was one of the heads identified in the race discrimination application. The claimant's attempt to add further particulars was refused, strike-out on time grounds was refused, and a deposit order was granted; no merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation |
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.