Case 2409766/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Langley 1st v Stockcross Ltd 2nd Respondent: Royal mail Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409766/2022
- Decision date
- 20 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Langley 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Liverpool on 12 June 2023, Employment Judge Buzzard sitting alone struck out the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims. The tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that the unnamed alleged perpetrators knew of his disabilities, that the alleged conduct was related to or because of those disabilities, or that the conduct would in any event amount to a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been unable to provide basic particulars of the allegations, including identifying the alleged perpetrators, and the claimant accepted that this would not change. The second respondent had made a reasonable effort to identify possible alleged perpetrators, but because of the size of the claimant's former workplace and the lack of identifying information it had been unable to do so. In those circumstances, the tribunal held that it was not possible for there to be a fair hearing.
The judgment recorded that judgment had already been entered against the first respondent in relation to the claimant's holiday pay claims at an earlier hearing. On that basis, and because the Equality Act claims were struck out, the tribunal stated that the claimant had no continuing claims against either respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | All Equality Act 2010 claims were struck out. The tribunal held that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing that the unnamed alleged perpetrators knew of his disabilities, that the alleged conduct was related to or because of disability, or that it would otherwise amount to a breach of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant also could not provide basic details of the allegations, including identifying the alleged perpetrators, so a fair hearing was not possible. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that judgment had been entered against the first respondent in relation to the claimant's holiday pay claims at an earlier hearing. This decision records that there were no continuing claims against either respondent, but it does not state any monetary figure for the earlier holiday pay judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.