Case 2407530/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Byrne v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407530/2021
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Byrne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided the respondent's application to strike out some of the claimant's claims or, alternatively, for a deposit order. Employment Judge Feeney sat alone at Manchester, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by a solicitor.
The claimant's disability discrimination claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. A sex discrimination claim concerning the provision of statements for the disciplinary process was also struck out on the same basis.
The Tribunal did not strike out the claimant's other sex discrimination and age discrimination claims, and did not make a deposit order in respect of them. The judgment records the outcome of the strike-out and deposit-order application only, with oral reasons given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination claim relating to the provision of statements for the disciplinary process was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Other sex discrimination claims were not struck out and no deposit order was made; the judgment does not determine their merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Age discrimination claims were not struck out and no deposit order was made; the judgment does not determine their merits. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no 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.