Case 2600434/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr Fahy, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600434/2019
- Decision date
- 14 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Clark REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Lincoln
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing dealing with time limits and prospects of success. The claimant's breach of contract claim, said to relate to non-payment of contractual wages during the period of the written contract, was held to have been presented after the relevant three-month period following termination on 31 July 2018. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that illness or ignorance of rights made it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and struck the claim out.
The tribunal next summarised four allegations of direct race discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010: not being given VT work, the respondent's failure to respond to his concerns, the requirement to go through a selection process or interview, and the handling of his complaints. Although allegations 1 to 3 were prima facie out of time, the tribunal extended time just and equitably to 4 February 2019. It accepted that there had been delay, but found that the claimant had taken steps to pursue the matter internally, had sought advice, and that the respondent would suffer little prejudice because the contemporaneous documentation remained available and the relevant issues were well recorded.
On prospects, the tribunal held that allegations 1 to 3 were not suitable for strike out and were not in the category of little reasonable prospect of success. It considered that there was an actual or hypothetical comparator capable of being tested at a final hearing, and that there was material from which the claimant could seek to establish the required 'something more' for a race discrimination case. The tribunal therefore allowed those allegations to proceed.
For allegation 4, the tribunal distinguished between the complaint that there was no formal complaints procedure for ex-employees, which it struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and the remaining criticism of how the complaints were investigated or treated, which it left to proceed. No monetary remedy was assessed at this stage, and separate case management orders were to follow.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim, said to concern non-payment of contractual wages throughout the contract, was presented out of time under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and struck it out without considering the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was dealt with at a preliminary hearing. Allegations 1-3 were found to be out of time on their face but time was extended just and equitably to 4 February 2019, so they were allowed to proceed. Within allegation 4, the specific complaint that the absence of a formal complaints procedure for ex-employees was race discrimination had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out, but the remaining parts concerning the handling of the complaints were left to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- article 7(a) and 7(c) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Walls Meat Company Ltd v Khan
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commission
- Pugh v National Assembly for Wales
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Bexley Community Centre v Robertson
- rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
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.