Case 2405708/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Krystian Smuda v Great Bear Distribution Ltd HELD AT: Liverpool (by CVP) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405708/2023
- Decision date
- 6 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Krystian Smuda
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing on 19 February 2024, Employment Judge Shotter considered the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s race discrimination complaints under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal proceeded on the basis of the claim form, witness statements and bundle, and noted that the claim form had been presented on 6 May 2023 after ACAS early conciliation between 28 April 2023 and 2 May 2023.
The tribunal held that the allegations about Stephen Harper, which concerned early starts and rest-day calls in 2022, could not realistically be treated as part of a continuing course of conduct that extended to the claimant’s dismissal on 24 May 2023. It found that Mr Harper’s involvement had ended by 1 August 2022, that he was not involved in the investigation, dismissal or appeal, and that there was no basis in the pleaded case for a discriminatory culture linking those earlier acts to the dismissal. It therefore dismissed the complaint of direct race discrimination in relation to those earlier acts and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis.
In reaching the time-limit decision, the tribunal applied the statutory time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and considered the principles on continuing acts and extension of time, including the balance of prejudice. It noted the claimant’s stated reasons for delay, but found them insufficient, and placed weight on the passage of time and the fact that Stephen Harper had died on 10 September 2023, which meant the respondent would be materially prejudiced in defending the allegations.
The discriminatory dismissal complaint was treated separately. The tribunal said it was very weak and very close to strike out because the claimant had a live final written warning, prior performance issues, less than two years’ service, and no comparator or other evidence showing that the dismissing officer was motivated by race. However, it stopped short of strike out and instead made a deposit order, with further case management directions and a re-listed final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the allegations against Stephen Harper occurring before 29 January 2023 were out of time, were not part of conduct extending over a period that included the dismissal, and did not justify a just and equitable extension of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The discriminatory dismissal complaint was not finally determined at this hearing. The tribunal said it had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered the claimant to pay a deposit, with the final hearing adjourned and to be re-listed. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner continuing act principle
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre just and equitable extension
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones exercise of discretion
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham factors
- Bahad v HSBC Bank plc strike-out caution
- rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- rule 39 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.