Case 2406030/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Russell v Guild Energy Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406030/2019
- Decision date
- 11 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Liverpool via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningCase Nos 2406030/2019 and 2410371/2019 were heard at Liverpool via CVP on 3 November 2020 before Employment Judge Sharkett sitting alone. The judgment is a preliminary hearing decision under Rule 37. The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims under s13 and s26 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application. No further reasons, liability findings, or factual determinations are set out in the judgment text provided. The decision therefore records only that the claimant's s13 and s26 Equality Act 2010 claims were allowed to proceed.
No remedy was awarded or addressed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | At a preliminary hearing on 3 November 2020, the respondent's Rule 37 application to strike out the claimant's claim under s13 Equality Act 2010 was refused. The judgment does not make a substantive liability finding on that claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | At the same preliminary hearing, the respondent's Rule 37 application to strike out the claimant's claim under s26 Equality Act 2010 was refused. The judgment does not make a substantive liability finding on that claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s26 Equality Act 2010
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.