Case 2410338/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent v Heard at — 2024
- Case reference
- 2410338/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett On
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Respondent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out allegations, or alternatively require deposits, in claims involving direct race discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment. The Tribunal refused the claimant's applications to postpone the preliminary hearing and to strike out the respondent's response, and allowed the claimant to retract earlier concessions withdrawing some allegations.
The Tribunal struck out direct race discrimination allegations 3 to 6, victimisation allegations 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14, and whistleblowing detriment allegations 15 to 19. It allowed allegations 1, 10 and 13 to proceed, and the reasons also state that the reading-list allegation, listed as direct race discrimination allegation 2, was allowed to proceed because evidence would be needed before it could be said to have no or little prospect of success.
No compensation or other remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment. A further preliminary hearing was to be listed to agree the final list of issues and make further case management orders.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations 1 and 2 were not struck out and were allowed to proceed to a final hearing. The judgment summary expressly names allegation 1 as proceeding and says allegations 3, 4, 5 and 6 are struck out; the reasons also state that allegation 2 was allowed to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations 3, 4, 5 and 6 were struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegations 10 and 13 were allowed to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegations 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment allegations 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 51 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospects of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
- Anyanwu v Southbank Student Union [2001] ICR 391
- Morgan v Royal Mencap Society [2016] IRLR 428
- Ahir v British Airways PLC [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
- Campbell v OCS Group UK Ltd and anor 2017 ICR D19 EAT
- Segor v Goodrich Actuation Systems Ltd
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.