Case 2600689/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Ferreira v J C Multilight (Yacel Industries Ltd) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600689/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Ferreira
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 30 October 2020 in Nottingham, before Employment Judge Britton sitting alone, the tribunal dealt only with procedural matters in this decision. The judgment records that the claim of religious philosophical belief discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal also refused the claimant’s application to amend the race discrimination claim. It then recorded that the residual race discrimination claim was automatically dismissed because the claimant had failed to comply with the Unless Order made by Employment Judge Broughton.
The claimant’s application to join Tina O’Sullivan and others was refused. A separate order was to issue about deposits and payment deadlines, the matter was listed for a further open hearing on 3 February 2021, and Employment Judge Britton recused himself from any further hearings in the case. No substantive merits findings or monetary award are recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment records that the claim of religious philosophical belief discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the application to amend the race discrimination claim and then recorded that the residual claim was automatically dismissed because the claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order of Employment Judge Broughton. | Struck out | Race | — |
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.