Case 2401512/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Henry v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401512/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Henry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the respondent's applications to strike out the claim under Rule 38 and for a deposit order under Rule 40. Both applications were dismissed, with the Tribunal finding that the respondent had not shown the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that a deposit order was not appropriate.
The claimant had identified 11 allegations or events which she said amounted to less favourable treatment because of race, with actual or hypothetical comparators. The Tribunal found that whether those events occurred and whether they amounted to less favourable treatment required a full hearing with evidence on the merits of each allegation.
The Tribunal noted that there may be issues about time limits, which would be addressed at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications were dismissed; the merits of the race discrimination claim were not finally determined. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 40 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA [2016] ICR 1121
- Ahir v British Airways plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
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.