Case 2601305/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Hepburn v Refinitiv Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601305/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Hepburn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 15 January 2020, Employment Judge Brewer sitting alone considered whether the claimant's claims of direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, direct age discrimination and victimisation should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The claimant was accepted to be disabled for Equality Act purposes because of prostate cancer, and he identified his race as black British. During the hearing the age discrimination claim was withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing; the tribunal recorded the age discrimination claim as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed at the strike-out stage as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at the strike-out stage as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Allegations 18(a) to 18(e) and 18(g) were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. Paragraph 18(f), alleging exclusion from 'sophisticated work' and assignment of minor or non-critical tasks after April 2019, was not struck out and was allowed to proceed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 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.
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.