Case 2408958/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Nicol v Back 2 Work Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408958/2023
- Decision date
- 4 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Representatives
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Nicol
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Nicol brought a race discrimination claim against Back 2 Work Group Ltd and applied to join Just IT Limited as a second respondent. At the hearing in Manchester on 2 October 2024, Employment Judge Barker refused the application to add Just IT Limited.
The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that the claimant accepted any action taken was the result of decisions taken by the Department of Education because of her visa.
The tribunal found that the respondent had no discretion to enrol the claimant on a course once the Department of Education had refused to fund her. It also held there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that either respondent, including Just IT Limited, had treated her less favourably because of her race in relation to her inability to enrol on one of their courses.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claim of race discrimination was dismissed because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to add Just IT Limited as a second respondent. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.