Case 2410204/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Josh Collins v Jenny Formby (sued as a representative of all members of The Labour Party except the claimant) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410204/2019
- Decision date
- 21 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Josh Collins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing, the tribunal allowed the claimant's amendments under Selkent v Moore. It found the respondent would not be prejudiced, and that the amendments were essentially a relabelling and more detailed setting out of the same factual case rather than wholly new claims.
The tribunal found that Mr Collins was not an employee or worker of the Labour Party. He had been a volunteer Campaign Forum Delegate, received no pay, had no contract, and there was no mutuality of obligation. The judge accepted the respondent's evidence that the interviewers did not know of any protected disclosures or any mental health issue, and found that the claimant was unsuccessful for the job because he had less campaigning experience than other candidates.
The tribunal treated the Equality Act complaint as a claim that the claimant was refused the post because he was perceived as disabled. It held that the claim was out of time: the relevant events crystallised in September 2018, proceedings were not issued until 2 July 2019, and the claimant gave no good reason for the delay. The judge also found that the delay prejudiced the respondent because interview documents had been destroyed and witness recollection had faded. The Equality Act claim was therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction; the judge added that, if it had not already failed on time, it would have been weak enough to justify a deposit order.
The whistleblowing claim was struck out because the claimant was not a worker within section 230(3) ERA 1996 and so had no standing to bring a section 47B claim. The tribunal also described it as having no reasonable prospect of success. The unfair dismissal claim had been withdrawn, and the decision records that all matters were finalised with no further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination/perception claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010, treated by the tribunal as a claim that the respondent perceived the claimant to be disabled when he was not appointed. Struck out as out of time and for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker, so he had no standing to bring the claim, and also concluded it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn by the claimant before the tribunal's final determination. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Selkent v Moore
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.39(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- X v Mid-Sussex CAB
- 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.
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.