Case 2304139/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Shafqat v BGC Technology International Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304139/2019
- Decision date
- 7 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Braganza Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Shafqat
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the First Respondent’s application to strike out the remaining direct disability discrimination allegation or, alternatively, for a deposit order. Mr A Shafqat had originally complained about the 29 July 2019 interview at Woking, but at the hearing he confirmed that he no longer pursued that part of the claim because he accepted his disability was not known to the Respondents at that time. The remaining allegation was that the First Respondent directly discriminated against him because of disability by not arranging a technical test at home and not arranging an interview at a step-free location after the events of 29-30 July 2019.
The Tribunal accepted that the First Respondent had serious reservations about the claim, including the email trail in the bundle and the disputed account of the telephone conversation with the Second Respondent on 30 July 2019. It nevertheless held that the strike-out threshold was not met. Applying the authorities on strike out in discrimination cases, it said that it could not conclude there were no reasonable prospects of success without hearing oral evidence about the surrounding events and the dealings between the First and Second Respondents. The First Respondent’s strike-out application was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal did, however, conclude that the allegation had little reasonable prospect of success and made a deposit order. Having regard to the Claimant’s means, it ordered him to pay a deposit of £750 within 21 days of the order being sent as a condition of continuing to advance the claim. The hearing did not determine liability on the merits and no final compensatory award was made at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The First Respondent’s strike-out application was dismissed, but the Tribunal made a £750 deposit order against the Claimant in relation to the remaining direct disability discrimination allegation. The Claimant had abandoned the original 29 July 2019 interview-based complaint because he accepted his disability was not known to the Respondents at that time. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- realistic as opposed to fanciful prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Van Rensburg v The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
- Hemdan v Ishmail
- Patel v Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd
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.