Case 2303802/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mir, Lay Representative For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303802/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Mir, Lay Representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London South by CVP before Employment Judge Morton on 2 May 2025, decided the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claim as a jurisdiction point. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim against Supercar Italia Limited under any provision of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent was an employment service provider within section 55 of the Equality Act 2010, but that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was excluded by section 56(5). No substantive Equality Act liability finding or remedy was made, and the judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The written record states that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claim because the Respondent was an employment service provider within s 55 and jurisdiction was excluded by s 56(5). The extracted judgment does not specify the pleaded sub-type beyond the case listing for sex discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s 55 Equality Act 2010
- s 56(5) Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.