Case 2302636/2022 · Employment Tribunal
A Ebanks v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302636/2022
- Decision date
- 22 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Ebanks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend her ET1 and particulars of claim. The claimant had originally brought claims including unfair dismissal, race discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, other payments, and victimisation, and later clarified proposed Equality Act claims for direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
At the hearing the claimant withdrew her unfair dismissal claim because she lacked the qualifying period of continuous employment, and that withdrawal was not opposed. The respondent did not oppose amendments adding particulars and dates, but objected to amendments which it said would add new allegations or causes of action relating to harassment and victimisation.
The application to amend was granted in part as set out in a separate judgment of the same date. The Tribunal gave consequential case management directions, including permission for the respondent to amend its grounds of resistance and a direction for the claimant to provide further information about alleged white comparators for the 15 March 2022 allegation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claim at the amendment hearing because she lacked the qualifying period of continuous employment; the respondent did not oppose withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment concerned an application to amend and case management; the merits of the race discrimination claim were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment concerned disputed amendments to add or clarify harassment allegations, including alleged events on 15 March 2022 and post-termination matters; the merits were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment concerned disputed amendments to add or clarify victimisation allegations, including correspondence with HR and post-termination matters; the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Galilee v Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis [2018] ICR 634
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link 2003 IRLR 434
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble and ors 1997 IRLR 336
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi 2003 ICR 800
- Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd 1984 ICR 348
- Presidential Guidance for General Case Management
- just and equitable to extend time
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.