Case 2406064/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr V. Chumber v Involve Visual Collaboration Ltd and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406064/2019
- Decision date
- 30 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr V. Chumber
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 20 December 2019, Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan considered the claimant's race discrimination claim against Involve Visual Collaboration Ltd and Mr R. Pasqualino. The tribunal held that the claim had been presented out of time, but that it was just and equitable to extend time to the date of actual presentation, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it.
The respondents had applied for the claim to be struck out, or alternatively for an order requiring the claimant to pay a deposit. The tribunal declined both applications, stating that it could not say, without hearing evidence that had not been adduced at the hearing, that the claim had no, or little, reasonable prospect of success.
A joint application for a costs order was postponed to be considered after the final hearing if pursued, with the respondents required to re-apply if they wished to maintain it. No remedy was awarded and no liability determination on the merits was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the race discrimination claim was presented out of time but it was just and equitable to extend time to the date of actual presentation. The respondents' strike-out and deposit applications were dismissed; the merits were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time
- no, or little, reasonable prospect of success
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.