Case 2304513/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Luximan (HR Business Partner) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304513/2018
- Decision date
- 16 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in London South on 7 October 2019 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish, sitting alone, the tribunal dealt with Mr L Samuels' disability discrimination claims against Brook Street (UK) Ltd. It struck out the direct discrimination claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had no reasonable prospects of success.
The respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims under section 15 and sections 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010 was refused, but its application for a deposit order in respect of those claims succeeded. The written record does not set out any monetary award or the amount of the deposit order, and it states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim. The tribunal struck this claim out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim. The respondent's strike-out application was not successful, and the tribunal made a deposit order in respect of this claim; the extracted text does not state the deposit amount. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20/21 Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustments claim. The respondent's strike-out application was not successful, and the tribunal made a deposit order in respect of this claim; the extracted text does not state the deposit amount. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 strike out (no reasonable prospects of success)
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.