Case 2304982/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Larmond v Immanuel and St Andrews Primary School — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304982/2022
- Decision date
- 3 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Phillips Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Larmond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an Open Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge G Phillips on 3 November 2023 dealing with three applications by the Respondent following a Case Management Hearing on 7 August 2023 which neither the Claimant nor his representatives attended. The applications were: (i) a wasted costs order against the Claimant's representatives; (ii) strike-out of the race discrimination claim; and (iii) in the alternative, a deposit order in respect of that claim.
On the wasted costs application, the Judge applied the three-stage test in Ridehalgh v Horsefield and found that the Claimant's representatives (Lambeth Solicitors) had been negligent in failing to act on emails from Acas in June and from the Tribunal and the Respondent in early August 2023 about the impending hearing. Mr Abu accepted the emails had been overlooked and their importance not appreciated. The Judge concluded this caused the Respondent to incur unnecessary costs, reflected in Counsel's fee for the 7 August hearing, and ordered Lambeth Solicitors to pay £750 in wasted costs.
On the strike-out and deposit order applications, the Judge declined to strike out the race discrimination claim or to make a deposit order, noting the draconian nature of strike out and that the final hearing was not until August 2024. However, the Judge agreed there were deficiencies in the claim as pleaded, including a lack of detail on the who/what/when/where of the alleged incidents and the absence of any specification of the Claimant's race, ethnicity or nationality, or whether he relied on a comparator. The Claimant was given 14 days (until 20 November 2023) to properly particularise the claim or withdraw it, failing which it would be struck out forthwith under an unless order.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. Respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications were both refused. The Claimant was given 14 days (until 20 November 2023) to properly particularise the claim (race/ethnicity/nationality, comparator, and who/what/when/where for the three alleged matters), failing which the claim would be struck out automatically unless withdrawn. The substantive claim was not adjudicated at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Not adjudicated at this preliminary hearing. The judgment records at paragraph 25 that 'there is no challenge per se to the unfair dismissal claim' and that the final hearing was listed for August 2024. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. Respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications were both refused. The Claimant was given 14 days (until 20 November 2023) to properly particularise the claim (race/ethnicity/nationality, comparator, and who/what/when/where for the three alleged matters), failing which the claim would be struck out automatically unless withdrawn. The substantive claim was not adjudicated at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Not adjudicated at this preliminary hearing. The judgment records at paragraph 25 that 'there is no challenge per se to the unfair dismissal claim' and that the final hearing was listed for August 2024. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £750
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Employment Tribunal rule 80 (wasted costs)
- Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] 3 All ER 848
- Medcalf v Mardell [2002] 3 All ER 721
- Mitchells Solicitors v Funk Werk Information Technologies York (UKEAT/0541/07/MAA)
- Rule 37 (strike out)
- Rule 39 (deposit order)
- Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance (Europe) [2014] All ER (D) 102
- Hemdan v Ishmail [2017] IRLR 228
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.