Case 2303980/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Keen, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303980/2019
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Keen, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the respondents' application to strike out the claimant's claims and their application for a deposit order. The strike-out application was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal made a deposit order in relation to the claimant's direct age discrimination claim, age harassment claim, and claim that he was refused a rest break contrary to Regulation 10(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Reasons were given orally, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment: the respondents' strike-out application was unsuccessful, but a deposit order was made for the direct age discrimination claim. The merits outcome of the claim is not determined in this judgment. | Other | Age | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing judgment: the respondents' strike-out application was unsuccessful, but a deposit order was made for the age harassment claim. The merits outcome of the claim is not determined in this judgment. | Other | Age | — |
| Working time regulations | Preliminary hearing judgment: the respondents' strike-out application was unsuccessful, but a deposit order was made for the claim of refusal to provide a rest break contrary to Regulation 10(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The merits outcome of the claim is not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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.
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.