Case 2304527/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person (assisted by Mr J Azah) For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304527/2018
- Decision date
- 23 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person (assisted by Mr J Azah) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 23 November 2020 at London South Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Hyams-Parish struck out the claimant's claims against Argos Limited pursuant to Rule 37(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The claimant was in person, assisted by Mr J Azah, and the respondent was represented by Ms Urquhart, Counsel.
The written record does not set out separate factual findings on the merits of the race discrimination or unfair dismissal claims. It records only that the claims were struck out and that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The note to the judgment states that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or in writing within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claims were struck out pursuant to Rule 37(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013; it does not separate any remedy by claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims were struck out pursuant to Rule 37(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013; it does not separate any remedy by claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(c) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.