Case 2600359/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr S Nair v University of Lincoln — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600359/2020
- Decision date
- 19 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr S Nair
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 17 August 2020 before Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone, the tribunal considered the claimant's race discrimination complaint by reference to six allegations. Allegation 6, concerning a racist performance by a student on Holocaust Memorial Day, was struck out because it had no real prospect of success.
Allegations 1 to 5 were not struck out, but the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit in respect of each because they had little reasonable prospect of success. The judgment states that the amount of each deposit, the allegations to which they related, and the reasons were set out in a separate deposit order. This judgment did not determine the merits of the surviving allegations and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | This was a pre-hearing decision on the claimant's claim for direct discrimination because of race. Allegation 6, described as racist performance by a student on Holocaust Memorial Day, was struck out because it had no real prospect of success. Allegations 1 to 5 were not struck out, but the tribunal ordered deposits because they had little reasonable prospect of success; the amounts and reasons were dealt with in a separate deposit order. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no real 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.