Case 2602944/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M D Smith First v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602944/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mr K Rose, Mr G Looker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M D Smith First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Nottingham Employment Tribunal in a hybrid hearing by CVP, gave a unanimous judgment on 21 December 2021. The panel consisted of Employment Judge K Welch with lay members Mr K Rose and Mr G Looker.
The Tribunal struck out the Claimant's claims of direct age discrimination, direct race discrimination and breach of contract. The stated basis was that those claims had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment records the claim as direct age discrimination and says it was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records the claim as direct race discrimination and says it was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records the breach of contract claim as struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospects 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.