Case 2600930/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr S Bulsara (2) Mr D Thornton v Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600930/2022
- Decision date
- 7 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr S Bulsara (2) Mr D Thornton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Camp on 7 September 2022 in the claims brought by Mr S Bulsara and Mr D Thornton against Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service. The hearing was held in private by telephone. By consent, the tribunal recorded that the respondents' decision under challenge concerned whether the claimants were put through to the second stage of the Group Manager – Talent Pool selection process, which consisted of an interview, a management report and a presentation.
The judgment disposed only of the non-race complaints. It states that all and any complaints other than complaints of direct race discrimination about those selection decisions were dismissed upon withdrawal in accordance with rules 51 and 52. The judgment does not determine the direct race discrimination complaints themselves, and it records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | By consent, all and any complaints other than complaints of direct race discrimination about the decisions not to put the claimants through to the second stage of the Group Manager – Talent Pool selection process were dismissed upon withdrawal under rules 51 and 52. The judgment does not identify those withdrawn complaints individually. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.