Case 2302333/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Singh v Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302333/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rea Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Singh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 19 February 2024 before Employment Judge Rea, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's race discrimination complaints against Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation. The judgment records that the complaints relating to alleged discriminatory acts in November 2019 were struck out because the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that those acts formed part of a course of conduct continuing to April 2022, and no reasonable prospect of showing that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit for those complaints.
The tribunal also struck out the claimant's remaining complaints of race discrimination arising from the investigation in March and April 2022. Those complaints were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Alleged discriminatory acts in November 2019 were struck out because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that they formed part of a course of conduct ending in April 2022, and no reasonable prospect of showing it was just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Remaining race discrimination complaints relating to the investigation in March and April 2022 were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
- 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.