Case 2409981/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Tomos v Institute and Faculty of Actuaries — 2025
- Case reference
- 2409981/2019
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Tomos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 16 January 2025, the tribunal gave Mr R Tomos an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reason given was that, in light of the Court of Appeal decision in Davda v The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries CA-2023-001183, the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospects of success.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient written representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Cookson struck out the claim. The judgment records no substantive findings on liability and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not specify the pleaded cause of action in the text provided; classification follows the GOV.UK listing category of race discrimination. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, in response to the letter dated 16 January 2025, and did not request a hearing. | Struck out | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.