Case 2408912/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Crawford v ISG Technology Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408912/2020
- Decision date
- 23 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Crawford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Manchester on 19 November 2021, Employment Judge Phil Allen, sitting alone, struck out the claimant’s victimisation claims under rule 37 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also struck out harassment claims related to race and/or religion and belief. Those claims included allegations that the claimant was called "mate" from November 2019 and that offensive language was used in front of him from 12 November 2019, including a particular occasion in January 2020. The tribunal found that those claims also had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant’s other claims of direct discrimination, harassment and unlawful deductions from wages were allowed to proceed to a further hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Struck out under rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claims related to race and/or religion and belief, including allegations that the claimant was called 'mate' from November 2019 and that offensive language was used in front of him from 12 November 2019, including on a particular occasion in January 2020, were struck out under rule 37 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.