Case 2303725/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kibayi v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303725/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kibayi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Hart on 20 March 2023. The respondent applied for a deposit order in respect of specific allegations or arguments relating to the claimant's race and/or religious discrimination claims. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal refused the respondent's application for a deposit order. The record does not set out written reasons because the judgment was given orally at the hearing, and written reasons were not to be provided unless requested. No merits findings were made on the underlying discrimination claims in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: the Respondent's application for a deposit order in respect of specific allegations or arguments relating to race discrimination was refused. No merits determination of the claim was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: the Respondent's application for a deposit order in respect of specific allegations or arguments relating to religious discrimination was refused. No merits determination of the claim was made. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
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.