Case 2603366/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. R Mbah v Toyota Motor Manufacturing UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2603366/2023
- Decision date
- 26 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. R Mbah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved preliminary judgment by Employment Judge Heap sitting alone. No evidence was heard. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the race discrimination claim to add an allegation that on 13 September 2019 Scott Doyle called him a 'faggot' and a 'twit'. The judge held that this was a new factual allegation, was over four and a half years out of time, and had not been shown to have a sufficient race nexus. The judge also recorded that allegations 1 and 2 from the earlier case management order were no longer pursued as race discrimination and would remain only as background to the constructive dismissal complaint.
On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal did not finally determine limitation or jurisdiction because the parties disputed the date and content of the last alleged act. The claimant said the final act was a 20 July 2023 announcement that 140 employees would be promoted as temporary team leaders, while the respondent said the relevant briefing was on 17 July 2023 and did not refer to promotions. Taking the claimant's case at its highest, the judge left the jurisdiction issue to the final hearing and listed the surviving direct discrimination allegations as the 2018 ATM-course complaint, the October 2021 recommendation of Darren Allen, the 21 March 2021 grievance issue, and the 20 July 2023 promotion decision.
The tribunal declined to strike out the constructive dismissal complaint and declined to make a deposit order. Applying Rule 39 and taking the claimant's case at its highest, the judge held that the claim could not be said to have little reasonable prospect of success if the claimant could prove the alleged pattern of denied promotion and the 20 July 2023 decision. No monetary award was made at this stage, and both the constructive dismissal and race discrimination claims were left for the final hearing on the surviving issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal refused the proposed amendment to add the 13 September 2019 allegation. It left limitation/jurisdiction on the remaining race complaints to the final hearing and listed the surviving allegations in the operative section of the judgment. Allegations 1 and 2 from the earlier case management order were no longer pursued as race discrimination and were left only as background to the constructive dismissal complaint. | Other | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal declined to strike out the complaint and declined to make a deposit order. It held, taking the claimant's case at its highest, that it could not say the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and the claim was allowed to proceed to a full hearing. No merits finding or award was made at this stage. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Hemdan v Ishmail & Anor
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd t/a Stagecoach Selkent v Moore
- Chapman v Simon
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- 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.