Case 3201739/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Sangar v East Village Dental Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201739/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Sangar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 4 February 2021 for reconsideration of the deposit orders made on 18 January 2021. The tribunal refused the application under Rules 70 and 72 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, holding that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and that reconsideration was not necessary in the interests of justice. It confirmed that the complaints had not been struck out, but that deposit orders had been made because the tribunal had considered the claims to have little reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant withdrew his age discrimination complaint, and the tribunal accepted that withdrawal and dismissed that complaint by way of withdrawal. As to the race and religion or belief discrimination complaints, and the complaint that he was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected public interest disclosures, the tribunal said the reconsideration application identified no new reason to revisit its earlier view that those complaints had little reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also noted that, if the case continued and the claimant complied with the deposit order, he would still have the opportunity to provide further evidence at a full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The claimant withdrew the age discrimination complaint in the reconsideration application, and the tribunal accepted that withdrawal and dismissed the complaint by way of withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal refused reconsideration of the deposit order relating to this complaint and said there was no new reason to revisit its earlier view that the complaint had little reasonable prospect of success. No final merits determination was made in this decision. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal refused reconsideration of the deposit order relating to this complaint and said there was no new reason to revisit its earlier view that the complaint had little reasonable prospect of success. No final merits determination was made in this decision. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | This was the complaint that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected public interest disclosures. The tribunal refused reconsideration of the deposit order and said there was no new reason to revisit its earlier view that the complaint had little reasonable prospect of success. No final merits determination was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rules 70 and 72 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- reasonable prospect of success
- interests of justice
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.