Case 2415213/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Klimek v The Hain Daniels Group Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2415213/2018
- Decision date
- 24 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tom Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Klimek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 3 April 2019 before Employment Judge Tom Ryan, the tribunal struck out the claimant's indirect race discrimination complaint set out in paragraph 51(b) of the Grounds of Complaint because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The respondent's wider application to strike out the remaining complaints was refused. The tribunal did, however, grant a deposit order in relation to the other complaints of indirect discrimination and in relation to the unfair dismissal complaint, so those matters were allowed to continue subject to that order. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination complaint in paragraph 51(b) of the Grounds of Complaint struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent obtained a deposit order as a condition of continuing the unfair dismissal complaint; no merits determination was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.