Case 2402853/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Amin v Manchester Airports Group plc and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402853/2021
- Decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr H Amin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Holmes sitting alone. The judge refused the claimant's recusal application under Locabail, then dealt with the respondents' strike-out applications for claims 4 and 5 and the alternative strike-out or deposit-order application for claim 6.
Claims 4 and 5 were struck out. They arose from the claimant's grievance about Lesley Hall's conduct in the meeting that Employment Judge Shotter had already held to be without prejudice. The tribunal held that the admissibility question could not be re-opened, that the underlying meeting evidence remained inadmissible, and that the grievance-based victimisation complaints had no reasonable prospects of success.
Claim 6 was not finally determined. It included constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, race and disability discrimination, victimisation and reasonable-adjustments complaints. The tribunal noted the claimant's contemporaneous emails and signed Occupational Health referral, the absence of a pleaded protected disability act, the lack of detail on direct discrimination and reasonable adjustments, and the difficulty of the last-straw argument. It made deposit orders of £25 on the ten claim heads listed in paragraph 79, postponed the June 2023 final hearing, and indicated that further medical evidence and an impact statement would be needed if the disability claims were to continue.
Claims and outcomes
12 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Claim 4 against Manchester Airports Group PLC. It arose from the grievance about Lesley Hall's conduct in the without prejudice meeting. The tribunal held the underlying meeting issue remained inadmissible, applied issue estoppel and struck the claim out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Claim 5 against Catherine Harris personally. It was the same grievance-based complaint as claim 4 and was struck out for the same reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Claim 6 constructive unfair dismissal / last straw complaint. The tribunal considered the Occupational Health referral and the claimant's earlier consent to that referral, and made a £25 deposit order rather than finally determining the merits in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim 6 notice pay / wrongful constructive dismissal complaint. A £25 deposit order was made; the claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim 6 direct disability discrimination or harassment allegation against Manchester Airports Group PLC. A £25 deposit order was made; the claim was not finally determined. | Other |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd
- without prejudice rule
- unambiguous impropriety exception
- issue estoppel
- Greater Manchester Police v Bailey reason why test
- Madarassy burden of proof
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust / Omilaju last straw test
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success deposit order
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.