Case 2406943/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Baird v E H Booth & Co Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406943/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Baird
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge K M Ross sat alone at Manchester on 8 February 2024 and issued a strike out judgment in relation to the claimant's complaint of harassment related to religion under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The judgment concerned allegations 16(c), 16(d) and 16(e) in the respondent's list of issues document.
The tribunal struck out those allegations under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The reason given was that the respondent was not responsible under the Equality Act 2010 for acts of third party harassment.
No liability findings beyond the strike out were made and no remedy was awarded. The judgment was sent to the parties on 27 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to religion under section 26 Equality Act 2010; allegations 16(c), 16(d) and 16(e) were struck out under rule 37 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal said the respondent was not responsible under the Equality Act 2010 for acts of third party harassment. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.