Case 2306004/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gilchrist, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2306004/2021
- Decision date
- 12 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Gilchrist, solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 11 and 12 April 2023, Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone struck out the claimant's claims of direct age discrimination, harassment related to age, direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, and victimisation. The tribunal also struck out all parts of the claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments that were not part of the complaints about the UPP conduct, the standing desk conduct, or pressure to return to work in the office.
The respondent's application under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to strike out the remaining UPP, standing desk, and pressure allegations was refused, as was the application under Rule 39 for a deposit order in respect of those allegations. The judgment records no substantive merits findings on those remaining complaints and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 | All parts of the claims for discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20-21 EqA 2010) other than the complaints about the UPP conduct, the standing desk conduct, and pressure to return to work in the office were struck out. The respondent's Rule 37 strike-out application and Rule 39 deposit application were refused as to those remaining allegations. | Other | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination under s.13 EqA 2010. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age under s.26 EqA 2010. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 EqA 2010. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under s.26 EqA 2010. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out |
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.