Case 2601356/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Grusina v Leicester City Council and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601356/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Broughton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs R Grusina
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered the respondents' application to strike out the claimant's whistleblowing and race discrimination claims on grounds including alleged scandalous or vexatious conduct, non-compliance with tribunal rules and orders, failure to actively pursue the claim, and whether a fair hearing remained possible.
The tribunal recorded repeated difficulties in obtaining clear further particulars of the race discrimination allegations and delays in disclosure. It found that the whistleblowing claims had been clear to the respondents since September 2022 and that, although there had been delay and unreasonable conduct, a fair trial remained possible.
The application to strike out was refused. The whistleblowing claim was allowed to proceed, and the race discrimination claim was limited to the six allegations in the February 2023 updated Schedule, subject to an unless order requiring prompt disclosure and confirmation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the respondents' application to strike out the whistleblowing claim; the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refused to strike out all race discrimination claims but limited the claim to the six allegations in the February 2023 updated Schedule; the merits were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37
- Rule 37(1)(e)
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson [2001] IRLR 324
- Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140
- overriding objective
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.