Case 2602115/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Donald Heaven v Fraser’s Group & Others Record of a Preliminary Hearing by CVP at the Employment Tribunal Audio Recorded by CVP — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602115/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Donald Heaven
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought further claims of race discrimination arising from his agency-worker engagement at the Sports Direct.com warehouse at Shirebrook and its termination. The tribunal recorded that earlier related claims had been dismissed or struck out, and that the claimant's later claims provided very limited particulars.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claims to add fresh allegations, including alleged failure to promote, refusal of overtime, and a comment telling him to go back to Africa. It found the proposed amendments were not a relabelling exercise, were substantially out of time, and would cause significant prejudice to the respondents.
The tribunal then struck out the remaining race discrimination claims. It found they were substantially out of time, that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, that the matter was substantially the same as claims already litigated and struck out, and that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claims of race discrimination were struck out at a preliminary hearing. The tribunal also refused permission to amend to add further allegations, including direct race discrimination and harassment. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore 1996 ICR 836
- just and equitable extension of time
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.