Case 2410203/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fairclough v Dave Whelan Sports Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410203/2019
- Decision date
- 13 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fairclough
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 24 June 2020 before Employment Judge Horne, the tribunal decided that the claimant’s unfair constructive dismissal complaint under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and his harassment complaint under sections 26(2) and 40 of the Equality Act 2010, were not struck out. Those complaints were therefore left to be determined at a final hearing.
The tribunal also held that the age discrimination complaint and the sexual orientation discrimination complaint required amendment. Permission to amend the claim was refused. The written judgment records that, had amendment not been required, the age discrimination complaint would have been the subject of a deposit order not exceeding £1,000 because it had little reasonable prospect of success, and the sexual orientation discrimination complaint would have been struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | At this preliminary hearing, the complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was not struck out and was left to be determined at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | At this preliminary hearing, the harassment complaint was not struck out and was left to be determined at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held that this complaint required amendment and refused permission to amend. It said that, had amendment not been required, it would have ordered a deposit not exceeding £1,000 because the complaint had little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Age | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal held that this complaint required amendment and refused permission to amend. It said that, had amendment not been required, the complaint would have been struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 26(2) and 40 of the Equality Act 2010
- sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010
- no reasonable prospect of success
- little 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.
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.