Case 2502027/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Iredia v Centre for Process Innovation Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502027/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Iredia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Iredia was employed by Centre for Process Innovation Limited as a Senior Electronic Engineer from 5 December 2012 to 9 July 2020. At this preliminary hearing the tribunal dealt with his application to amend the race discrimination pleading to add eight additional comparators, and the respondent’s application to strike out the direct discrimination because of marriage and civil partnership claim. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant’s original harassment related to marriage, bullying and equal pay allegations had been withdrawn. The hearing did not determine the merits of the claimant’s original constructive unfair dismissal claim or the underlying direct race discrimination claim.
The amendment application was refused. The tribunal held that the eight proposed comparators would amount to eight new claims of direct race discrimination rather than a mere rebadging of the existing case, and that the proposed allegations were not properly particularised. It found no cogent explanation for the delay, no evidence of when the claimant learned of the comparators, and no explanation of how their circumstances matched his beyond their different ethnic origin. Applying the Selkent principles and the authorities it cited on amendments and time limits, the judge concluded that the new claims were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal also struck out the direct discrimination because of marriage and civil partnership claim under rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The pleaded case relied on a note that the claimant’s wife was putting pressure on him, but the tribunal found no coherent connection between that note and an act of less favourable treatment because of marital status. It noted that no actual comparator was identified, the alleged act appeared to be a single event in around March or April 2019, and allowing the claim to proceed would also sit uneasily with the race discrimination case. The tribunal therefore dismissed that claim and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal refused leave to amend the ET1 to add eight additional comparators to the direct race discrimination claim. It held that the proposed allegations were new claims rather than a rebadging of the existing case, were insufficiently particularised, and were out of time with no basis for a just and equitable extension. The underlying race discrimination claim itself was not finally determined at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The direct discrimination claim because of marriage and civil partnership was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim identified in the original ET1 as related to marriage was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Equal pay | The equal pay claim identified in the original ET1 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The bullying allegation identified in the original ET1 was dismissed on withdrawal; the judge noted bullying was not a separate tribunal jurisdiction. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Evershed v New Star Asset Management
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Accurist Watches Ltd v Wadher
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- QDOS Consulting Ltd v Swanson
- Remploy Ltd v Abbott and others
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Chandhok & Anor v Tirkey
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
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.