Case 2302917/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2302917/2017
Decision date: 1 March 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Moore MEMBERS
Venue: London South
Panel members: Ms P O'Toole, Ms B Levertton

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant applied to amend his claim to add protected disclosure detriment, discrimination by association on disability, race, religion and sexual orientation grounds, indirect sex discrimination based on shared parental leave/pay and maternity leave/pay, and breach of contract. The tribunal treated these as new claims or substantial expansions of the pleaded case. It refused the amendments, holding that the discrimination claims were significantly out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and that it was not reasonably practicable to present the breach of contract and protected disclosure claims in time.

The tribunal also refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim, but granted a deposit order of £350. It said discrimination claims should only be struck out in the most obvious and plain cases and that there was significant disputed evidence for a full hearing. On the equal pay issue, it held that the respondent had reasonable prospects of showing that the claimant was not employed on like work to his comparators, that the roles were unlikely to be the same or broadly similar, and that a genuine material factor defence was available; one comparator was male and the other was not in post during the comparison period.

The claimant's application to strike out the response was refused. The tribunal also ordered redaction of references to ACAS discussions from the claimant's witness statement and bundle under section 87 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. It stated that a closed telephone preliminary hearing would be listed after the deposit deadline to clarify what claims remained and address any further case management orders.

Claims and outcomes

9 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Equal pay	The respondent's strike-out application was refused. The tribunal said there were reasonable prospects on like work/work of equal value and a genuine material factor defence, but made a £350 deposit order because the claim had little prospect of success.	Other	—	—
Sex discrimination	The original sex discrimination claim remained live and the respondent's strike-out application was refused. The proposed amendment to add indirect sex discrimination based on shared parental leave/pay and maternity leave/pay was refused.	Other	Sex	—
Victimisation	The judgment referred to victimisation as one of the matters arguably contained in the original claim, but made no merits finding on it. The amendment application was refused.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	The proposed protected disclosure detriment claim was refused as a new out-of-time claim and because the amendment did not identify the disclosure, recipient or date.	Other	—	—
Disability discrimination	The proposed disability-by-association discrimination amendment was refused as out of time and lacking sufficient particulars.	Other	Disability	—
Race discrimination	The proposed race discrimination amendment was refused as out of time and lacking sufficient particulars.	Other

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.