Case 3200074/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Tejan-Kella v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200074/2019
- Decision date
- 30 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Brien
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Tejan-Kella
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the Respondent's application for a deposit order in relation to the Claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race.
Employment Judge O'Brien, sitting alone, found that those complaints had more than little reasonable prospects of success. The Respondent's application for a deposit order was therefore refused. The judgment did not decide the substantive discrimination or harassment complaints, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment refused the Respondent's application for a deposit order on the basis that the direct race discrimination complaint had more than little reasonable prospects of success; it did not determine the complaint on its merits. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refused the Respondent's application for a deposit order on the basis that the harassment related to race complaint had more than little reasonable prospects of success; it did not determine the complaint on its merits. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- more than little reasonable prospects of success
- deposit order
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.